cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <jheini...@virbus.de>
Subject Re: [proposal] Doco
Date Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:59:09 GMT
On 26.10.2003 01:49, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> 
>>>> We should at least use the body with an explicite "accept" and 
>>>> "reject" in it. This can't be done by accident, while it can happen 
>>>> for sending a mail.
>>
>>
>> But why not at least explicite "accept"/"reject" in the subject or the 
>> body of a mail?
> 
> 
> saves you a couple of seconds per email. the easier the job, the more 
> people will do it.
> 
> more than errors, I'm concerned to people not moderating things thru.
> 
>>>> I would like to see a little application, where a link in the mail 
>>>> points directly to the resource. The committer has to login and 
>>>> accept or reject the change. So conflict situations can also be much 
>>>> better handled and reverting changes should also be easier to be 
>>>> implemented.
>>>
>>> I dislike this, it stops me from doing auditing offline.
>>
>>
>> Is offline/online still an issue?
> 
> 
> It is for me. I want a system that works for me, does not force me to 
> work for the system.
> 
>> Furthermore we only talk about minutes if not seconds per day: the 
>> mails are sent, you can read offline and decide whether to accept or 
>> reject,, go online, click on the link in the mail, login, click 
>> "accept" or "reject", finished. Even on the wiki not more than ten 
>> pages change per day. We are many more committers.
> 
> 
> suppose that I'm online and reading email.
> 
> your solution requires me to: move my hand on the mouse, click on the 
> link [this opens the browser that will automatically fill the login page 
> with my login/password], click login, approuve the change, go back to my 
> email client.
> 
> my solution requires two keystrokes
> 
> your solution is easy enough, but I'm way more lazy than you can 
> possibly imagine... I know me and I know that many fellow cocooners are 
> as lazy as I am, this means that I will end up avoiding doing 
> moderation, or forgetting altogether.
> 
> this will result in a few people doing the moderation task only, 
> increasing by orders of magnitude the errorprone-ness of the system and 
> decreasing fault-tollerance by reducing distribution of laber and 
> redundancy.
> 
> I say we try my lazy ass solution first and then, in case we find 
> problems with it, we change.
> 
> deal?

Man, you must really be lazy ;-) So, yes, let's try your solution first.

Joerg


Mime
View raw message