On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 11 Jun 2016, at 08:53, Alistair Grant <akgrant0710@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Esteban,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:52:46PM +0200, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
Hi,
I was doing a pass on the catalog??? I think is very negative that non-documented projects appear there??? because most people does not know what does projects are about and newcomers will find weird a project install tool with lots of projects without any description. So I was thinking on put an option ???show all??? and hide those projects by default??? but now I think those projects SHOULD NOT BE VISIBLE AT ALL, as a way of:
- offer better experience to non-power users, and - encourage people to actually document their projects??? is very annoying to have so much of them without any documentation.
What do you think?
Rather than hiding projects that people were legitimately allowed to add (at the time), why not modify the catalog to not accept projects that don't have sufficient metadata, including the description?
it is not possible right now, and the hiding would work as the same.
people were legitimately allowed is also relative⦠truth is that most undocumented projects comes from MetacelloRepository (the original one) and there was no catalog nor metacello toolbox :P but most important: most of those projects are unmaintained projects are will not load anyway, so they are not just source of noise, they also can make the community looks bad, I think.
I agree its discouraging to see lots of blank descriptions when browsing the catalogue. Indeed it makes me wonder "is it working", which is bad. However I see something like Aconcagua which probably is very useful to have a catalog entry for, but maybe their it has no definite "owner" in our community. A solution besides completely hiding them would be to have an [Undocumented] tab. Then if the Catalog Browser had a help topic with a recipe on how to update the description of undocumented entries (download/modify/upload) perhaps(?) it would be easier for the community to contribute to updating them, than if they never appeared. I think our community image is maintained if the undocumented projects are segregated in this way. I think mainly brand/image suffers when deficiencies turn up in "official" looking locations. Not so much if its a designated badlands. It about user expectations and surprises. The default description might advise these were imported from a time before the catalog description field was defined, and refer to the help topic to request help updating the descriptions. cheers -ben
IIRC there was some discussion about hiding or lowering the priority of projects that haven't been modified or confirmed as working in the latest versions of Pharo. That would still be useful.
well, hiding them would certainly âlower the categoryâ. My first approach (toggle hide/show) would work...
Between the two, that would get rid of undocumented projects.
Just my 2c, Alistair
cheers, Esteban