maria-docs team mailing list archive

[Shaun McCance <shaunm@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 13:32 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 09:54 -0500, Daniel Bartholomew wrote:
> > I'm fine with the idea of stubs, as long as they don't get lost or
> > forgotten about. They are a good way to encourage participation and
> > plot a course for what to add to the KB next.
> > 
> > To keep track of them, we could add a checkbox to the edit page to mark
> > whether or not a page is considered a stub, and then have a special
> > page that lists all stubs.
> 
> Instead of a boolean flag for stubs, how about an enum field for status?
> Stubs would be one status. This could help you keep track of which pages
> you've thoroughly reviewed, for example.

(Just throwing ideas in the ring. Take them or leave them.) Another
option would be to have a stub macro, like this:

<<stub>>
This article is a stub. [[contribute|Help us write it.]]
<</stub>>

I don't know the internals of the KB. If it parses pages when they're
saved, it could store a stub count per-page, and generate a report of
all pages with a stub count > 0.

Pros:
* It encourages people to write a blurb telling users the page is a
stub, and what they can do to help.
* It can be used to stub sections in a page, which I think is useful
sometimes. Just do this:

== SSL Options
<<stub>>
This section is a stub. [[contribute|Help us write it.]]
<</stub>>

This would be picked up by a save-time stub counter as well.

--
Shaun