Re: [Self-platform-dev] UI mockup for versioning

[Federico Heinz]

On 26/02/2008, Nagarjuna G. wrote:
> Your suggestions make good sense.

I'm glad you like them.

> the tree as shown in slide number 3 is oriented from top to bottom.
> Therefore the existing widget needs to be designed, which will take time.

I am well aware of that. That suggestion is an idea of what we can aim for, but
I don't think that availability of that mode of rendering the tree is a
critical element. While we should aim for it if we can (and I realize it's a
lot of work), we should not make it a *requirement* for the fist phase of the
project. If the underlying branching/versioning stuff works properly, we can
wait for a better interface to become available.

> Rajiv, it is now better not to spend more time in continueing
> with the existing widget for version tree.  except for bug fixing.

And for making sure that version and branch tracking is working properly.

> Later next week, i will also begin writing the methods for calculating
> popularity.

One thing I've been wondering is whether the authorhip metric is useful as it
is currently defined. The way it is defined, an LO that has contributions by 10
authors of reputation 0.1 has the same authorship rating than one that is the
work of just one author with reputation 1, and I'm not sure this is reasonable.
I'm aware that this is also an oversimplification, but maybe the average of the
authors' ratings would be a better metric?

        Fede

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature