Hi Jonathan,
Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Ethan
>
> Yes, I tend to agree with that. The wiki would have advantages for working on
> the text of a proposal. I have two reservations about it:
>
> * Changes to the wiki are not emailed out. Without comments and reasoning being
> sent out when contributions are made, I'm pretty sure that discussions would
> not progress. I think that we would have to use trac as well, to describe what
> changes had been made, with links to the appropriate place on the wiki.
>
Yes, it would require that people add comments to the trac ticket
whenever they make changes (at least substantive ones) to the wiki document.
Russ mentioned ticket #26 (
http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/trac/ticket/26) to
me as an example that separates the discussion from the change proposal
text. It uses attachments rather than a wiki document but has a clean
discussion/document separation.
Attachments are part of the ticket and adding one does send out an
email. However, the format is not defined and they don't have built in
version control (unless supported by the underlying document format).
> * The wiki doesn't have a way to mark up an individual's changes, so it doesn't
> draw attention to the changes. If, on the other hand, you make a complete new
> version with your changes, it depends on the reader to compare them, and that
> is tedious and awkward. Does anyone know of something like Word track-changes
> that can be used like a wiki? I really would not like to use Word for CF,
> because I find it inconvenient and *very* annoying.
>
The CF wiki does support version control and has a nice interface to
look at diffs between versions. Not quite as clean/convenient as the
change tracking in Word but could be used in comments added to the
tickets. (Though it isn't that easy to find. From a wiki page, follow
the "Last Change" link. From there you can look at "Page History".)
Ethan
Received on Fri Jun 27 2008 - 17:04:15 BST
