ENIGMA Forums

Contributing to ENIGMA => Proposals => Topic started by: polygone on February 28, 2011, 02:01:49 am

Title: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on February 28, 2011, 02:01:49 am
I think the function approval process could use some work. It's not exactly organised at the moment and not much seems to happen. It should be structured in a way so people know what is going on and things are kept moving.

I propose several sub-forums for the function approval system:

- Review
- Testing
- Committed
- User
- Rejected

All functions are first posted in the Review sub-forum. Here they are discussed and optimised fully, when they appear to be written properly they are then moved to the Testing sub-forum. Here anyone can test the function and mark as working correctly. Then they should finally be moved to either the Committed or User sub-forum, depending on whether it is a function that should be committed or just a user-made function that can be used by people. Before moving to the Committed forum functions should also be committed to the SVN. The Rejected sub-forum is obviously for any functions that are not considered useful and thus sent out of the approval process.

By changing to this system hopefully it will drive more progress forward, it will then also leave a nice list of committed and user functions which people can easily browse.

I'm not even sure how this board is moderated, but if the proposal does come to light it might be helpful to have some local mods in the forum to help. And just an extra suggestion that the list of missing and finished GM functions should be pinned somewhere in the forum.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: TGMG on February 28, 2011, 09:56:31 am
Yes I agree I think we do need a much better system for approving functions. The problem I can see with using the forum is that only certain people (moderators) can edit topics and move the topics around, which is alot of work that could be spend on development.

Also another problem is that in a forum topic the useful information is spread across many different posts so information is easy to miss.

I was thinking you could use the wiki for this purpose. Have a page that lists all the unimplemented functions, each function is a link to a wiki page for that function.
You can put wiki pages into different categories like "Testing", "To be committed", "Faulty" etc. The developers can easily just look through the categories and put the "To be committed" in svn etc.
The page could allow developers implementing the functions to share information like test cases, problems with the current implementation, optimizations etc.

When the function is complete the page can simply become the documentation page for that function. The implementation details could either be removed or could provide helpful information for functions that don't have documentation yet.

Forum topics would still be useful for discussion about functions though.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: RetroX on February 28, 2011, 04:33:32 pm
Moving a topic takes ten seconds.  And if it means adding more functions, that is development.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on February 28, 2011, 07:51:11 pm
I can see the value of both methods.
I agree with RetroX in that it's not a problem for us Mods to move the topics.
But I'm really drawn to TGMG's suggestion of using the wiki.
Function discussion can be done on the wiki under the Discuss page.
Unfortunately my biggest concern with using the wiki is that it's not frequented in the same way that a forum is. Although we can place a timestamp with every function on a function list wiki page (I envision a table with "Category | FuncName | Status | Date"), it's still not going to get the traffic needed for a good peer review process because it's much easier to see changes when the forum topic has "1 unread post" than visiting the History page of every function or visiting the Recent Changes area.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on February 28, 2011, 08:35:55 pm
Hmm the wiki is probably better for the long term, I guess that is where things could become organised and standardised so it is unneeded on the forum. But the main reason for suggesting this is to try and drive progress, which the forum is best for right now. The wiki can all be written later.

Also with the wiki what about user functions that aren't going to be committed, where to they fit into things?
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on February 28, 2011, 08:43:46 pm
Generally at this point it's pretty easy to see which functions are user functions and which are GM functions, simply by virtue of the function existing in GM or not. Otherwise, it's fine if it appears on the wiki, it would simply be marked as a user function, and if it ultimately doesn't belong there, then we can delete it and just leave it on a User Functions forum.

I don't like the "wiki can be written later" mindset. It's procrastination for something that can be easily implemented now and will save us a bunch of work later. At the very least, we should consider having each submitted review function also have a wiki page.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on February 28, 2011, 09:14:35 pm
Ok I see your point, if it's left till later it will probably be left for a long time. What about if there is an extra step in the forum procedure? Where after testing is done the function must be documented on the wiki before it is committed. People will be more likely to document things then if there is the benefit of having it committed afterwards.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on February 28, 2011, 09:47:50 pm
I suppose that would work.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: TGMG on March 01, 2011, 05:39:48 am
What about if I (or somebody) posted a new topic every week with all the new functions that have been tagged in the wiki, with links to the pages. In order to get feedback from all or most of the current developers and forum users before the function is committed to svn, if after a week their is no objections or bugs found in the functions contained in that topic they will be added to svn by me (or somebody else).

The topic could contain the top functions ready to be added, a list of functions that are too buggy to be added (to remind).

This way people would be aware of the new functions about to be added and help either test, optimise or fix functions before they are added. Since its sort of a weekly thing progress is much more likely to take place and functions are unlikely to be left unnoticed in a forum for a period of time. All the functions will be added in a weekly commit so no waiting for developers to add each individual function.

Also another benefit is that the testing information such as:
show_message("Hello world"); // Displays "Hello world" correctly in a message box
show_message("Hello \n World"); //Displays Hello on the first line and World on the second

Can easily be left in the page to become examples of how to use the function.
So when developers are testing their function they can write all the tests in the wiki page (so other users can see what tests have and haven't take place along with tests that fail), when added to svn this information can allow users new to gml examples for how to use each function.

Also functions can be tagged as not working in MacOSX and I can instantly see the functions which are causing problems, same with any platform. You can tag functions as working in Android, iphone, opengl, directX etc, so users can see which functions work and don't work for there target platforms.

If the function has been committed and later found a bug in the function developers can use the wiki page again to implement the fix and new testing information.

Plus since the programmer who implemented that function pretty much knows the function inside out, it shouldn't take too long for them to write a short description of what its used for.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on March 01, 2011, 11:53:02 am
Personally it would work for me since the topic would serve as a reminder. The process could possibly even be automated/streamlined by a bot.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 01, 2011, 02:36:58 pm
I suppose a forum post would work as a reminder, but then like moderation it will take some commitment from someone to actually do it. What's more importantly needed here as well as the process being changed is someone committed to keeping things organised and moving forwards.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: TGMG on March 01, 2011, 04:06:50 pm
I like the idea of using a bot to streamline the process, and yes it does take some commitment for someone to actually do it, but not really that much.

This is how it could work:
1) Someone implements function, posts code and relevant information
2) Tags page as "Review"
3) Bot (or user) picks up list of weekly pages and Posts Topic in the forum listing them
5) Community discuss any problems with the functions
6) Enigma developer reviews topic at end of week, adding accepted, tagging buggy functions and editing the page with relevant information.

So the only time investment would be the user adding the accepted functions to svn, tagging of buggy functions and everything else can be done by anyone (person who implemented the function prob).
Moving topics around sounds like much more added time as well as checking each function in the topic for which ones need to be moved.

Plus its very easy for developers who want to add a new function or looking for status on a function.
1) Go to wiki page with all unimplemented functions
2) click function name to either create a new page or view the status of the function

Rather than looking through all the topics in a forum which are all mixed up. Its a very easy way for everyone to see the unimplemented functions at the same time.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 01, 2011, 05:06:46 pm
OK I'm starting to warm more to the idea of the wiki. Are you going to start it off? Then we can see how it goes.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: TGMG on March 01, 2011, 05:26:50 pm
When i'm sure everyone is happy with this idea then I will start it off. There is a list of functions which I have only half implemented and want to clean up and put on the wiki to test this idea out.

First I need to find a way to generate the list of functions unsupported by enigma by comparing that list gm has with the enigma list. Parse it and convert to a wiki format (so all the the functions link to a page). Then implement some functions and test the process out.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 01, 2011, 05:45:17 pm
Well I'm happy with it and Ism seems so. I guess we should get Josh's opinion. EDIT: Quote Josh "I like the Wiki idea, but we need the attention the forums draw. Perhaps linking to a Wiki."

What about functions that have already been implemented? A list of those should also be populated on the wiki also then people can just document them whenever.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on March 01, 2011, 11:04:35 pm
I've created a {{review}} template. All functions undergoing peer review should include {{review}} near the top. This will automatically categorize them and add a nifty little box on the right saying that it's undergoing peer review.
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Template:Review

Please feel free to improve upon the template and the categorization process if you are familiar with wiki templating/categorization.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 03, 2011, 12:18:31 pm
OK so is this set to go then? I want to make sure we can actually sort something out because I believe it is necessary to help drive progress.

So the first thing needed is to populate the function list on wiki. Are you working on this TGMG?
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on March 03, 2011, 12:46:09 pm
We still need to formalize some things, but I think we have a general idea of how it should work, so people can start posting their ideas functions on the wiki. A bot will need to be written as well.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 06, 2011, 06:32:59 am
I have created an example on the wiki (feel free to edit it):
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/GM_function_example
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 06, 2011, 04:56:09 pm
OK I've done all the templates and categories I think we need:

Unimplemented (http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:GM_Functions:Unimplemented)
Review (http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:GM_Functions:Review)
Testing (http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:GM_Functions:Testing)
To Commit (http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:GM_Functions:To_Commit)
Implemented (http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:GM_Functions:Implemented)

I think this is a good approval process to go through.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: TGMG on March 07, 2011, 06:27:42 am
Thats looking good polygone :)

A few things about the function example, I think we should split the page into two sections, one thats easy for users to read about the function and the other for implementation details.
So for example the first section will have a high level description of the function, a description of all the arguments, examples for how to use it etc

The second section would ideally have the code, unit tests (well assert statements) to make sure any changes don't break the function, general details such as where it fails and what still needs to be done.

Also we need if possible to automatically turn all those functions in the current unimplemented function list into links to their own page.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 07, 2011, 07:02:13 am
Quote
A few things about the function example, ...
Edit the function example (http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/GM_function_example) page to whatever you think it should look like.

Quote
Also we need if possible to automatically turn all those functions in the current unimplemented function list into links to their own page.
That list isn't really needed. They will all categorize automatically when we add them: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:GM_Functions:Unimplemented
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 07, 2011, 07:52:22 am
I have added another template and category:

Implemented - Needs Documentation (http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:GM_Functions:Implemented_-_Needs_Documentation)

What I suggest we do is get RetroX to generate a list of both unimplemented functions and implemented functions. Then we can add them to the wiki using the bot at the same time. The unimplemented functions can be posted using the {{unimplemented}} tag and the implemented functions can be posted using the same format but just tagged to {{committed - needs documentation}} instead.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on March 07, 2011, 02:49:39 pm
Thank you again, polygon, for all your help with the wiki.

We should consider renaming "Committed" to "Implemented" so that the category also makes sense for functions that got fast-tracked in (e.g. already existed without a peer-review process).
Also, consider adding a "Rejected" category and a "Rejected" template which can have a reason (although I'm tempted to say: "must" have a reason).

Also, see: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:Peer_Review

All those new catagories you created should be super-categorized under this.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: luiscubal on March 07, 2011, 03:27:52 pm
May I suggest that all contributed functions should come with some example/unit test to prove correctness? If not at contribution-time, then at least before being approved.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 07, 2011, 04:25:49 pm
May I suggest that all contributed functions should come with some example/unit test to prove correctness? If not at contribution-time, then at least before being approved.
I have added it as a suggestion that an example files should be submitted. I don't think it's necessary to force it though, a user with SVN access should be capable of judging the reliability of the testing.

@IsmAvatar: I have made those changes.

We might want to consider different images instead of the bullshit for the several review stages, so it is more easy to recognise the stage of the function upon glance.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on March 08, 2011, 09:56:19 pm
The bullshit was just a temporary image, until we could find more appropriate replacements.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: TheExDeus on March 13, 2011, 06:47:45 am
Will pages like these (http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:Function:Implemented) populate automattically or we just put links in there to the finished functions? Or function names? Or what?
For example, these are finished, implemented and documented functions:
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Backgrounds#Functions
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Drawing_shapes#Functions
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Sprite#Functions
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Drawing_curves#Functions
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/DLL#DLL_Functions
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 13, 2011, 07:40:05 am
They will populate automatically when the templates are being used, ie when {{implemented}} is used it will automatically categorise to the Template Category. When the wiki bot is created hopefully it should post all the functions using a template. Then functions following the function peer review (http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:Peer_Review) process should still remain with a template, it will just be changed.

All the functions already documented on the wiki (like the pages you linked to) should be changed to fit in the procedure.

I'm not sure exactly what's best for function sets. It makes sense to post function sets just in a single post, perhaps the title could just be for example draw_text_*. Then the overall system and code can be explained and commented on in a single place. However there will be an issue with making the wiki bot do this (ie it will have to post differently) and I do also think it's right to have a full list of categorised individual functions, so a function can easily be found from a category. It may be best for every function to have an individual page, then all functions in a set can be marked with an extra category. The overall system of the function set can then be explained in the category.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 15, 2011, 07:11:18 pm
OK here is my full proposal for the bot.

1) Two full lists are made of all the implemented and non-implemented GM functions.
2) All the functions on each list are read and posted in individual articles on the wiki, using just the function name as the topic title.
3) All the articles are posted using the Function Example (http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Function:Example) format (if anyone thinks this should be changed then do it now). The function_name(parameters) line within the post can be generated using the function name and parameters read, the rest will just have to remain empty ready for people to fill in. All function from the unimplemented list use the {{Unimplemented}} tag, all functions from the implemented list use the {{Implemented}} tag and are also categorised under [[Category:All_pages_needing_cleanup]] so we know they still need documenting.
4) As for function sets, I think they are still best to all be posted individually. They can be gone over and categorised / documented as a function set when people come to them.

That's it for now, the forum bot can be dealt with later. It's just necessary right now to populate the functions so people are actually able to use the system.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on March 16, 2011, 01:25:06 am
I have a full listing of GM functions and their arguments in LGM:
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/lateralgm/browser/LateralGM/trunk/org/lateralgm/jedit/functions.txt
However, this listing does not specify whether the functions are implemented or not.

We also have this list, which was populated courtesy of RetroX:
http://www.enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Remaining_GM_Functions
Although it might be a little tricky to parse due to the variety of information it contains.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on March 16, 2011, 09:09:46 am
I was hoping RetroX would be kind enough to make an implemented list as well as an unimplemented one. It should be easy enough to parse, just check for brackets and it's a function.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: RetroX on March 16, 2011, 05:09:29 pm
It's just the reverse of what I have for the script.  One second.

EDIT: To get the list, pull the list of keywords, functions, etc. from LGM and shove them into a file named "enig."  Then, copy this (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6125077/enigma/gm) file (should be named "gm") and shove it in the same directory.  Run this bash script (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6125077/enigma/list.sh) in that directory to get a list of functions.  Finished functions are prefixed with "FINISHED:", while unfinished ones are prefixed with "UNFINISHED:".

I can update the wiki page if you want, but there's the script if anyone else feels like it.

To get just the unfinished:
Code: [Select]
./list.sh | grep '^UNFINISHED' | sed -r 's/UNFINISHED:[[:space:]]*//'
To get just the finished:
Code: [Select]
./list.sh | grep '^FINISHED' | sed -r 's/FINISHED:[[:space:]]*//'
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on May 30, 2011, 10:02:12 am
Will try and bump this topic back up. I'll post useful links for the wiki bot api while I'm here as well, for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Login
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Bulk_Page_Creator
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Patrick_Nagel/Login_with_snoopy_post-1.15.3

As has been the case for a while everything is ready to go, we just need to write the bot to populate the functions on the wiki.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: TGMG on June 06, 2011, 05:32:00 am
I have had an idea for an alternative Function approval process, which will probably save time and be a more efficient way of implementing functions for multiple platforms. The wiki idea would make it difficult to keep track of functions which are implemented differently on multiple platforms. It is also more work for developers who want to try out the functions, have to locate page in wiki, copy/paste it in and write a few tests. Then an enigma developer needs to take all of those functions and commit it into the main svn. It is quite alot of work to get this system running.

I propose a new system based on github and my automatic testing of examples:
I would setup a github repo for enigma for unstable function development, it would contain unimplemented.h which contains all the dummy functions which are either blank or half implemented (some in "#ifdef PLATFORM" blocks which require different implementations per platform).
Anyone who wants to implement a function simply forks the project, implements it fully or makes an attempt at it, then submits a pull request.
This will then get merged into the one repository daily, which anybody and check out to see the latest progress of all the unfinished functions.
The repository will be automatically tested using the 900+ gm examples, which already contain which functions they require so to would just be a case of making sure they work as expected and then the function can be added to the main enigma svn on sourceforge.

This provides a number of benefits, its much easier to make functions which require editing other files, easier to fix bugs, easy to see the progress of all the functions without geting them one by one using the wiki, easy to see how well your game runs based on functions which aren't quite ready, less work editing the wiki, more up to date function lists (easily keep in sync with main svn).

It also keeps the main svn clean for more stable development. Any ideas?
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: TheExDeus on June 27, 2011, 04:51:36 pm
So I see that finally all of the functions are added to the wiki. Now the question is will these pages also serve as the help for the specific function, or will we need to create separate page? Because now I have documented text, sprite and background functions and I want to know if we need these functions separated. One good way would be to keep the currently documented pages, but make function name clickable (thus link each function to its own page). So for example, a user is searching for "Drawing Text", the first page he will hit is this:
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Drawing_text
There he can see all of the drawing functions and also see a short description. Now if he clicks on one of the functions (like draw_text), he will be taken to a separate page:
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Draw_text
Here he could see a longer description, the code used to implement this function, and also examples on how to use this function. This would work great when (or if) LGM allows to open help from the editor. There you would see a search field and the help tree (something like GM's chm), and all of that could be achieved with the wiki.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on June 28, 2011, 05:32:01 am
Yes, that is what I had in mind. Every function will have it's individual page and for function sets/related functions there will be a separate main page outlining the overall system. The main page (in this case http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Drawing_text) should be made into a category and all the functions which fall under it should be categorized to it.

Note I haven't yet added the implemented functions to the wiki, only the unimplemented ones. I will be doing those soon, note that if you add a page for any implemented functions before I do the bot will go over them when it's run.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on June 28, 2011, 05:51:39 am
As for this approval process I don't know how it is going to proceed from here.

As the wiki is a lot less frequented than the forum I suggest that a pinned topic should be posted in the peer review forum about the procedure. When writing a new function, a user should post their code in the corresponding wiki function page then make a post in the peer review forum linking to it. Then the function can be discussed on the forum or the wiki page. The user will need to keep the function up to date on the wiki, following the peer review tag system. With function sets/related functions only one post should be made on the forum for discussion.

There is still somewhat of a problem though that without an actual bot in place reporting to the forum, developers are unlikely to notice what new functions have been tagged on the wiki as under review, testing or to commit.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: TheExDeus on June 28, 2011, 07:22:04 am
Quote
developers are unlikely to notice what new functions have been tagged on the wiki as under review,
They should just visit this from time to time:
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:Function:To_Commit
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:Function:Testing
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on June 28, 2011, 01:05:13 pm
And this:
http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Special:RecentChanges
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on July 15, 2011, 06:20:25 am
OK to clarify everything. I have run the bot again to put the implemented functions on the wiki.

But the peer review system on the wiki has been abandoned. The functions will now stand there only for documentation. A page has been made on the wiki as a guide to the format the function should ideally be documented with: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Function:Documentation

Note that I am now tagging all functions with either {{Function:GM}} or {{Function:ENIGMA}} so there can be a clear distinction which functions are new to ENIGMA and didn't exist in GM. This then also categorises the functions.

All the functions I have just added to the wiki have been tagged with {{Function:GM}}. However all the ones I ran previously haven't, these are all still using the deprecated {{Unimplemented}}  template tag from the peer review system. So when documenting any of older added functions you should add the {{Function:GM}} tag in yourself.

Also make note that all undocumented functions have been categorised to: http://enigma-dev.org/docs/Wiki/Category:Function:Needs_documenting. With the older added functions I have changed the {{Unimplemented}} tag to categorise the functions there, with the newly added functions I have just added the line [[Category:Function:Needs_documenting]] to categorise them. Thus when you have finished documenting a functions you should remove either the {{Unimplemented}} tag or the [[Category:Function:Needs_documenting]] so they are not categorised as undocumented. In hind-sight I should have probably added another template for the newly added functions instead of using [[Category:Function:Needs_documenting]] or I suppose I could have even just reused the {{Unimplemented}} template again, but too late now  ::)
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on July 15, 2011, 06:39:17 am
So now the function peer review process has been removed from the wiki I guess we need another system? There still does not seem to be a consensus though or anyone pushing to implement a particular system.

Maybe, since it really only seems to be the actual developers at the moment doing anything it is not actually worth the effort of making a general peer review system and one would only actually slow things down?
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: TGMG on July 15, 2011, 08:31:59 am
The easiest way would be for someone to fork my github (https://github.com/amorri40/Enigma-Game-Maker), modify any files required, submit a pull request. The when I get the pull request I will check which games use the functions implemented from here (http://www.alasdairmorrison.com/enigmaexamples/index.php), test the implemented functions in all of the games that require them and if they pass, I will merge the function into main svn. If they fail I will just reject the pull request with a reason.
Very easy to implement this system (its already implemented and ready to go now), very easy to accept and deny new functions, contributors can modify any files they want (add a new platform, bugfix etc) and easy to use (just click the fork button on github).
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on July 15, 2011, 08:39:09 am
OK then. How about we just post functions in the peer review forum as normal to be scrutinised, then if anyone notices functions there which seem ready to commit they can submit them to github for testing and to be committed.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on July 16, 2011, 02:14:57 am
I see nothing wrong with keeping the peer review tags on the wiki, even if they aren't going to be maintained very frequently. As it stands now, functions aren't really implemented at any kind of astonishing rate, and when a function is implemented, it can be marked thusly on the wiki manually, or by a bot if we ever make one. And it's not really a big deal if a function has the wrong tag on it.

Also, people are still welcome to use the wiki to submit functions, they just won't get checked very frequently.

Just because it's progressing slow as molasses (if at all) doesn't mean it's abandoned entirely and useless.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: polygone on July 16, 2011, 04:40:22 am
Josh was fundamentally against it, he didn't want unlicensed code on the wiki and there were some other things on a list which I don't remember.
Title: Re: Function approval process
Post by: IsmAvatar on July 16, 2011, 09:17:38 pm
Technically the only reason it's not licensed is because we didn't bother putting a license on the boards yet.