It's stupid that I can't post in the 1.4 forum

[lhx]

I'd like to offer my services to help with 1.4. I'm new to java, but I'm fluent in Python & Go and I speak some C so Java shouldn't be that big of a change. I'm familiar with git & github and comfortable with rebasing, merges, etc.

I'm available to help with testing, documentation, wiki, coding, etc. If someone would propose a small task, I'd be happy to contribute.

(Having your dev forum blocked is a PITA for someone trying to help).

[aliasmask]

Yeah, you need to get put on the contributors list in order to post. That forum is mainly for those who work on the code to brainstorm with other contributors and devs about the direction of 1.4. It's made public to view to let the community what they're up to. I recommend posting under "Nice to meet you" in the general forum to put you on the "real person" permissions of the forums (requires 2 approved posts). Then you can post your comments under the MapTool forum in regards to 1.4 and they'll be moved to the appropriate forum if relevant. Someone else will have to update your status to contributor to participate directly in the 1.4 forum.

[lhx]

Will do. Thanks for the tip.

[Jagged]

Also, here's a good place to start if you want to code for 1.4: Eclipse IDE Install for Maptool 1.4 for a clean Windows PC

[Full Bleed]

I wouldn't say it's "stupid" that I can't post in the 1.4 forums as I think a place for devs to communicate unecumbered is a good thing... But I will say that there have been a number of threads discussing proposed features that probably could have benefited from getting some input for the forum/users at large.

I think the forum should be respond only (i.e. no non-dev posts). It's not like input from non-devs would suddenly overwhelm the tasks at hand.

[wolph42]

I wouldn't say it's "stupid" that I can't post in the 1.4 forums as I think a place for devs to communicate unecumbered is a good thing... But I will say that there have been a number of threads discussing proposed features that probably could have benefited from getting some input for the forum/users at large.

I think the forum should be respond only (i.e. no non-dev posts). It's not like input from non-devs would suddenly overwhelm the tasks at hand.

well... that still leaves the issue that there's currently no admin around to execute the idea.

[aliasmask]

I think RPTroll may have permission to update user groups, but I'm not sure. Otherwise, it's left up to Azhrei or Craig. Perhaps a PM to one of them.

[Jagged]

I have entirely mixed feeling.

From one side, I felt the need to create a thread in this forum for to get feedback on my Isometric grid, but at the same time, its nice sometimes to limit the discussion to the people who are at risk of being asked to do some of the work

[JML]

My two cents: that's not this silly to have a dev only subforum, and good to let others sneak a look, but may be the dev could think of sharing some of their thoughts in a less select place where others could answer

No need to change forum rights this way.

[wolph42]

but we can add users who want in for a good reason.

[Full Bleed]

My two cents: that's not this silly to have a dev only subforum, and good to let others sneak a look, but may be the dev could think of sharing some of their thoughts in a less select place where others could answer

No need to change forum rights this way.

But it's not only "dev" type discussions going on.

For example: http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?f=86&t=25821

Why exactly would you exclude the community from talking about a configurable initiative system feature? The lack of participation in many of those threads indicate either an extremely narrow scope or a complete lack of diversity, input, and constructive feedback.

I guess when I think back to the golden age of MT development, when Trevor held the reigns, he was more open about acknowledging his limitations (in particular, his knowledge and understanding of games people would be playing) and, consequently, included the community in those sorts of ground-level discussions. It was better for him. Better for MT. And better for the community.

Again, I'm not saying that there aren't topics that might benefit from being in a dev-only forum (database discussions, build deployment, functional directions & assignments, etc)... but much of what I see in the 1.4 forum is being pointlessly walled off.

[Jagged]

Yeah, I can see that.

Originally each thread in the forum had a related thread in the general discussion area. The stuff in the 1.4 forum was just about the delivery of stuff already discussed. We haven't kept that distinction though, and through use, the discussion has become mixed.

Not sure how best to move forward. We should encourage general discussion and wider input but I would like to maintain an area for the technical discussion. Perhaps we should just open the forum up and see how it goes? Maybe a sub-forum forum in the developer section, that only contains threads that track 1.4 work packages? And we be strict about only having functional discussions in the main area. Sounds like a lot of work for a forum admin

[JML]

Sounds like a lot of work for a forum admin

No. For forum moderators. Once the rights have been established, he (the admin) can delegate the daily management to the moderators. I think Wolph has already been granted this role and others could take this on.