View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 20 September 17 2:43 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
GCA Adoptions 
Author Message

GCA Found:
GCA Hidden:
Post 
caughtatwork wrote:
I'd like to avoid more DB field for "maintained by" if I can avoid it. That's confusing.


Yea but this could be a PR issue as much as anything, and like all political dances could end up getting up someone's nose if not handled properly.

If not linked to 2 accounts, or perhaps just a flag showing it's been adopted or a note in the body of the main text field that it was formerly owned by XYZ, bit like a change log I guess since it could invariably pass to another individual in future for any number of reasons. Change logs not only show what has changed but give credit to those that deserve it.


18 December 08 1:49 pm
User avatar

Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Posts: 14581
Location: Melbourne
GCA Found: 1040
GCA Hidden: 268
100 GCA Finds500 GCA Finds1000 GCA Finds
Post 
It's an option which I would like to avoid as we have enough fun with the code as it is.

The difficulty we have here is that the original property has been replaced when it became useless, so whose property is it now?

I am tending towards an opinion of if it's broken, then log a needs maintenance or a SBA. If no action is taken, then request an archive. When (if) it gets archived, then you can replace the cache, list a new cache and away we go.

This is not the final opinion, just a thought as I travel along.


18 December 08 2:12 pm
Profile E-mail WWW

GCA Found:
GCA Hidden:
Post 
caughtatwork wrote:
It's an option which I would like to avoid as we have enough fun with the code as it is.


This is why I said making a note in the main body of text, avoids adding a field, but at the same time doesn't add any overhead really to 2k of text.

Quote:
I am tending towards an opinion of if it's broken, then log a needs maintenance or a SBA. If no action is taken, then request an archive. When (if) it gets archived, then you can replace the cache, list a new cache and away we go.


That's what I thought too, since the only adoption in this case is a DB entry, and the site, although a person shouldn't be blocking someone else from putting a cache somewhere if they don't intend to do all the work either.


18 December 08 2:18 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Forum theme by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.