• Martin Carney (4/4) Jan 18 2009 Visiting dsource I'm disappointed by the large number of half-finished a...
• dsimcha (7/11) Jan 18 2009 out of date.
• Bill Baxter (14/25) Jan 18 2009 Getting a different ordering every time you look at the projects list
• Stewart Gordon (9/17) Jan 18 2009
• Simen Kjaeraas (6/9) Jan 18 2009 Then have the list divided into two parts: on the top, the active projec...
• Bill Baxter (3/12) Jan 18 2009 Sounds reasonable to me.
• jcc7 (11/14) Jan 20 2009 I received commit permission on an abandoned project. (And then I
• Tomas Lindquist Olsen (7/11) Jan 22 2009 I took over the MinWin project a long time ago, since its author, Ben
• BCS (3/6) Jan 18 2009 Yah, some sort of bucket sort would be better (active in the last week, ...
• Clay Smith (6/13) Jan 19 2009 I think there needs to be a feature so the project mods can mark their

Martin Carney <marcarn hotmail.com> writes:

Visiting dsource I'm disappointed by the large number of half-finished and
not-started projects on the projects page.

I pick on interesting project and look at the source tree - no files or years
out of date.

I think the unfinished, out-of-date and not-started projects should be moved to
their own page - lets see the wood for the trees...

mc

dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

== Quote from Martin Carney (marcarn hotmail.com)'s article
 Visiting dsource I'm disappointed by the large number of half-finished and

not-started projects on the projects page.
 I pick on interesting project and look at the source tree - no files or years

out of date.
 I think the unfinished, out-of-date and not-started projects should be moved to

their own page - lets see the wood for the trees...
 mc

Or, an even simpler idea:  Since these things are difficult to define and
require
human intervention, sort each project category by last checkin.  The most active
projects will be on the top, and the least active on the bottom.

Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:56 AM, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:
 == Quote from Martin Carney (marcarn hotmail.com)'s article
 Visiting dsource I'm disappointed by the large number of half-finished and

 not-started projects on the projects page.
 I pick on interesting project and look at the source tree - no files or years

 out of date.
 I think the unfinished, out-of-date and not-started projects should be moved to

 their own page - lets see the wood for the trees...
 mc

 Or, an even simpler idea:  Since these things are difficult to define and
require
 human intervention, sort each project category by last checkin.  The most
active
 projects will be on the top, and the least active on the bottom.

Getting a different ordering every time you look at the projects list
would be annoying.  But you could make an automatically  pruned list
that just omits any project that hasn't had an update in 6mos or so.
The good thing is that DMD keeps changing so much that if a project
hasn't been updated in that long, it probably doesn't compile.   So
the argument "it's not dead, just stable!" doesn't hold.

Anyway I think Brad was working on this at one point.  There were a
bunch of ideas thrown around at least.

My vote would be to get something simple up like you suggest.  Keep
the full list somewhere, but put a prominent link at the top pointing
to another page that just lists the projects with activity in the last
6 months.  Likewise on the "active" list put a link to the full list.

--bb

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:56 AM, dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>
 Or, an even simpler idea:  Since these things are difficult to define and
require
 human intervention, sort each project category by last checkin.  The most
active
 projects will be on the top, and the least active on the bottom.

 
 Getting a different ordering every time you look at the projects list
 would be annoying.  But you could make an automatically  pruned list
 that just omits any project that hasn't had an update in 6mos or so.

<snip>

As long as that automatically pruned list isn't the default.  Otherwise, 
there would probably be lots of new projects started when it would be 
better to revive an existing project.

Speaking of which, has anybody tried asking Brad for commit permission 
on an abandoned project in order to revive it?

Stewart.

"Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:11:15 +0100, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com>  
wrote:

 As long as that automatically pruned list isn't the default.  Otherwise,  
 there would probably be lots of new projects started when it would be  
 better to revive an existing project.

Then have the list divided into two parts: on the top, the active projects,
on the bottom (and explicitly marked as such), projects that have not been
updated in a while.
Simen

Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Simen Kjaeraas <simen.kjaras gmail.com> wrote:
 On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:11:15 +0100, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com>
 wrote:

 As long as that automatically pruned list isn't the default.  Otherwise,
 there would probably be lots of new projects started when it would be better
 to revive an existing project.

 Then have the list divided into two parts: on the top, the active projects,
 on the bottom (and explicitly marked as such), projects that have not been
 updated in a while.
 Simen

Sounds reasonable to me.

--bb

jcc7 <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:

== Quote from Stewart Gordon (smjg_1998 yahoo.com)'s article
...
 Speaking of which, has anybody tried asking Brad for commit
 permission on an abandoned project in order to revive it?

 Stewart.

I received commit permission on an abandoned project. (And then I
abandoned the project, too--oops! At least I announced the abandonment
on the project wiki, so people didn't have to dig into the source to
see how fresh it was.)

I think Brad's usual policy is to try to contact the original
maintainer and then after a week or so to just grant commit permission
to the new person if he doesn't hear an objection from the old
maintainer. I haven't heard of any problems with malicious project
hijacking, so I think the system works.

Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com>wrote:

 ...
 Speaking of which, has anybody tried asking Brad for commit permission on
 an abandoned project in order to revive it?

 Stewart.

I took over the MinWin project a long time ago, since its author, Ben
Hinkle, had disappeared from the community, I tried reviving it for about
half a year, with some success, but eventually I got tired of doing it
alone, with little to no testers/users.
So it's pretty dead now again...

-Tomas

BCS <none anon.com> writes:

Hello Bill,
 Getting a different ordering every time you look at the projects list
 would be annoying.  But you could make an automatically  pruned list
 that just omits any project that hasn't had an update in 6mos or so.

Yah, some sort of bucket sort would be better (active in the last week, month, 
6 months, year, etc.)

Clay Smith <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:

Martin Carney wrote:
 Visiting dsource I'm disappointed by the large number of half-finished and
not-started projects on the projects page.
 
 I pick on interesting project and look at the source tree - no files or years
out of date.
 
 I think the unfinished, out-of-date and not-started projects should be moved
to their own page - lets see the wood for the trees...
 
 mc

I think there needs to be a feature so the project mods can mark their 
project as active or inactive. Those mods who aren't around, should be 
labeled as Potentially Inactive. Then they can be sorted by status, and 
no projects would appear inactive unless the project author specified.

~ Clay