Rev 3.5 Dictionary--User contributed notes!
andre at andregarzia.com
Thu Apr 16 12:53:46 EDT 2009
I'd rather have an inverse approach where every comment is approved by
default and we can flag the ones we think should be removed. And yes, the
comments should have bugs in them with links to the QA center. I don't want
to search the QA for every revolution command I want to use, I want the
documentation to include up to date information and notes including bug
reports, all in one place.
every software has bugs, there's no point in having two separate places,
specially when the QA center is not visited by most users.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Benjamin Beaumont <ben at runrev.com> wrote:
> Good afternoon all.
> I wanted to take a little time to post in relation to discussions regarding
> Collaborative Docs, one of our new features in Revolution 3.5. Since the
> launch of 3.5 we have seen a lot of you taking the time to post some really
> useful examples, hints and comments which have already started to recieve
> positive rating from others users. Thank you to all who have posted or left
> feedback up to now.
> Can I start by apologising to anyone who submitted a Collaborative Docs
> comment that was declined and hasn't received an email notifying them. The
> email system was put in place towards the end of the 3.5 development cycle.
> All who submit a comment will now receive notification when it is approved
> or declined. If it is declined you will be sent your original post and be
> invited to modify it and re-submit it.
> ...and that's the downside. It's kind of like the Microsoft approach
>> to the world: the theory is great but the implementation sucks. My
>> notes have been rejected for some reason, and once you submit them you
>> don't have a copy anymore, so you can't edit them for resubmission or
>> really even have any idea what it was you submitted. I gave up in
>> disgust. I'll be happy to read your notes, but I doubt I'll be wasting
>> my time submitting any more.
> HOW IT WORKS
> When a new Collaborative Doc entry it submitted, it is held on one of our
> servers in a 'pending' state. One of the development team will look at all
> the pending comments roughly once a day and check their content before
> approving them. They are looking to ensure that a comment is helpful to the
> wider community and ensure that it is directly related to the specific doc
> entry it has been posted against.
> If a comment is not approved, an email is automatically sent to the person
> who originally posted the comment. The email contains possible reasons it
> was not approved and the original comments placed. This allows them to
> modify and re-submit the comment if they choose to.
> HOW TO POST
> If you are considering making a post please do! For hints and tips on how
> to structure your posts click on the "About Notes" link on the Collaborative
> Docs bar in any Revolution Documentation item.
> Warm regards,
> *Benjamin Beaumont . Runtime Revolution Ltd*
> Revolution Product Manager
> *mail* : 25a Thistle Street Lane South West, Edinburgh, EH2 1EW
> *email* : ben at runrev.com <mailto:ben.beaumont at runrev.com>
> *company* : +44(0) 870 747 1165
> *fax* : +44(0) 845 458 8487
> *web* : www.runrev.com <http://www.runrev.com/>
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
http://www.andregarzia.com All We Do Is Code.
More information about the Use-livecode