Active/Not Active...

[zehd]

I have a suggestion for the wiki. Rather than noting on each plugin/utility whether it works with a specific version of GB-PVR, (the list could get long), we could note whether the developer is actively involved in keeping the software current and to which version it is considered backward compatible...

Maybe a 'last updated', 'last version of GB-PVR', 'Backward compatible to xxx version'...

Something like that. I haven't done mine because I thought we might want to all be on the same page...

[Fatman_do]

I at one time went through several and tagged them as "Unsupported". Gives an idea that it may not work well now, or in the future. If you want to expand upon the idea.....

[zehd]

I at one time went through several and tagged them as "Unsupported". Gives an idea that it may not work well now, or in the future. If you want to expand upon the idea.....

It's true that anything like this would entail a few of us editing other's wiki pages. It's unlikely that all developers will be tweaking their pages every new release...

Maybe another idea...

We go ahead and tack on the version number of a GB-PVR the software works on. It could mean that a plugin have five or six versions stuck at the bottom...

But we can have a TOC page, similar to the one you have, but that lists only those plugins that have the current version, called 'current', and another section for the rest.... In order to get a plugin to be current, the developers just update or confirm their software, and tack the number at the bottom of the list.

We'd only have to edit the one TOC page. Any software that doesn't have the most current version sticker on it, won't be considered active either...

Edit: I spoke too soon (again)!! You're already doing something like this...

[-Oz-]

I think the version numbers are the way to go. For new users it assures that they get plugins and updates that work.

Really though, I think the wiki is very large and probably scares new users. We need to do something about that.

Perhaps redo the manual to point to plugins and such. For example, I updated the page that talks about remotes to tell people that it actually works with more than just the remote mentioned and pointed them to the Hardware section.

[blader_se]

For new users it assures that they get plugins and updates that work.

And for oldies, like myself, who want's rock solid installations. ;-)

Really though, I think the wiki is very large and probably scares new users. We need to do something about that.

I'm all ears for technical solutions. (I'm still looking for a way to make the sidebar automatically update on Category keywords...)

Ps.
I'm planning to update the wiki at the next release of PMWiki since it will support summaries, making the lists more readable.

We could also add something like "the grey box" at the top of the plugin pages to handle versions, maintainer, status and such things in a more automatic way. (See http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/WatchLists as an example, and note it's entry in the list on http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/Menus.)

As some of you probably know, I'm biased towards automatic solutions that rely on updating just single pages...

[zehd]

And for oldies, like myself, who want's rock solid installations. ;-)



I'm all ears for technical solutions. (I'm still looking for a way to make the sidebar automatically update on Category keywords...)

Ps.
I'm planning to update the wiki at the next release of PMWiki since it will support summaries, making the lists more readable.

We could also add something like "the grey box" at the top of the plugin pages to handle versions, maintainer, status and such things in a more automatic way. (See http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/WatchLists as an example, and note it's entry in the list on http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/Menus.)

As some of you probably know, I'm biased towards automatic solutions that rely on updating just single pages...

As someone that just spent hours on a zillion pages, I agree automatic is good..

BTW, I haven't noticed it enough, but the page really loks different with IE than firefox. I like it better with firefox, and when I write, I forget to check the page with IE too... The side bar gets really weird with IE... Do you think that that's fixed with the new?

[zehd]

I think the version numbers are the way to go. For new users it assures that they get plugins and updates that work.

Really though, I think the wiki is very large and probably scares new users. We need to do something about that.

Perhaps redo the manual to point to plugins and such. For example, I updated the page that talks about remotes to tell people that it actually works with more than just the remote mentioned and pointed them to the Hardware section.

As someone that did redo a lot of the manual last year, I have to say AGAIN, that I'm big on defaults. The manual is designed to run GB-PVR, not plugins, utilities, or skins...

I think sub and I agree, even if we come from different angles. With Transcoding, the 'default' way, using ffmpeg etc is/should be documented in the Manual.

An alternative, like ZProcess should be offered elsewhere...

Adding links to alternatives, within the Manual pages would be even more cluttering... methinks

On the other hand... Yeah the wiki is getting quite big. I really try to reorganize and rewrite when I see a chance...

But GB-PVR is a big project, and a VERY big concept for newbies to figure out.

Maybe a couple of idiots (with affection) guides...

[blader_se]

BTW, I haven't noticed it enough, but the page really loks different with IE than firefox. I like it better with firefox, and when I write, I forget to check the page with IE too... The side bar gets really weird with IE... Do you think that that's fixed with the new?

Hmm, they look identical for me (examining the front page closely), using FF 2.0.0 and IE 6.0. Have you tried to flush all IE caches?

[Ted the Penguin]

As someone that did redo a lot of the manual last year, I have to say AGAIN, that I'm big on defaults. The manual is designed to run GB-PVR, not plugins, utilities, or skins...

I think sub and I agree, even if we come from different angles. With Transcoding, the 'default' way, using ffmpeg etc is/should be documented in the Manual.

An alternative, like ZProcess should be offered elsewhere...

Adding links to alternatives, within the Manual pages would be even more cluttering... methinks

On the other hand... Yeah the wiki is getting quite big. I really try to reorganize and rewrite when I see a chance...

But GB-PVR is a big project, and a VERY big concept for newbies to figure out.

Maybe a couple of idiots (with affection) guides...

IMHO, the manual for a plugin should be part of that plugin's wiki page, or if it needs more than that, a sub page (you can make those right?) I think it just makes sense to have to manual for something located in the same place you download it

[-Oz-]

And for oldies, like myself, who want's rock solid installations. ;-)

Yea, rock solid is good. HTPC2 is rock solid, HTPC1 I break because I play.

As someone that just spent hours on a zillion pages, I agree automatic is good..

I agree, I hate non-automatic stuff

As someone that did redo a lot of the manual last year, I have to say AGAIN, that I'm big on defaults. The manual is designed to run GB-PVR, not plugins, utilities, or skins...

The issue i have is look at all the questions in the forums. We have a huge wealth of knowledge. How to cut out commercials, how to transcode the video files, etc. But every noob has to ask or really search (I spent days searching the forums to come up with a solution I liked). And personally, the Blue skin is a tad too plain for me.

I will say though a lot of my initial plugin choices came from seeing what people were using via their signature.

We could also add something like "the grey box" at the top of the plugin pages to handle versions, maintainer, status and such things in a more automatic way. (See http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/WatchLists as an example, and note it's entry in the list on http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/Menus.)

This may be the way to go because currently nothing is standardized. People list version numbers wherever, some have tags some don't (my newest article has tags at the bottom)

Some stuff in the wiki just isn't up to date enough. Mainly I mean the capture card table. That is important so new users don't waste money. I'm not sure the best way to organize it though, how it is now is good but its a PITA to update. I also have no idea which ones work or don't... I know the HVR-1600 should be added.