Talk:Port requests - Revision history

Shaddim: marking

2016-07-10T10:07:40Z

marking

Mdwh: /* Gigalomania */ now ported to Pandora!

2013-06-04T22:21:03Z

‎Gigalomania: now ported to Pandora!

Mdwh: /* Gigalomania */ new section

2012-01-01T13:26:36Z

‎Gigalomania: new section

Esn: /* Goals for this page */

2011-04-30T00:34:58Z

‎Goals for this page

Esn: /* Goals for this page */

2011-04-30T00:33:28Z

‎Goals for this page

ABC: /* Goals for this page */ rename pages would be good

2011-04-29T08:35:33Z

‎Goals for this page: rename pages would be good

Esn: /* Goals for this page */

2011-04-29T07:50:02Z

‎Goals for this page

Esn: /* Goals for this page */

2011-04-29T07:47:26Z

‎Goals for this page

Esn: /* Goals for this page */

2011-04-29T07:45:07Z

‎Goals for this page

Esn: /* Goals for this page */

2011-04-29T07:44:46Z

‎Goals for this page

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:07, 10 July 2016
Line 143:		Line 143:

	:Gigalomania is now ported to Pandora! See http://repo.openpandora.org/?page=detail&app=gigalomania_ptitseb [[User:Mdwh\|Mdwh]] ([[User talk:Mdwh\|talk]]) 00:21, 5 June 2013 (CEST)		:Gigalomania is now ported to Pandora! See http://repo.openpandora.org/?page=detail&app=gigalomania_ptitseb [[User:Mdwh\|Mdwh]] ([[User talk:Mdwh\|talk]]) 00:21, 5 June 2013 (CEST)
		+
		+	== Marking instead of removal or ported games entries ==
		+	As ptitseb already started, for tracking purposes it is an good idea to mark (colorcoded) ported games instead of removing them. Also, this list could be reused for the Pyra, could be done by extending the table by a new Pyra column. [[User:Shaddim\|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim\|talk]]) 12:07, 10 July 2016 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:21, 4 June 2013
Line 141:		Line 141:

	Please let me know if you want any more info on it. [[User:Mdwh\|Mdwh]] 14:26, 1 January 2012 (CET)		Please let me know if you want any more info on it. [[User:Mdwh\|Mdwh]] 14:26, 1 January 2012 (CET)
		+
		+	:Gigalomania is now ported to Pandora! See http://repo.openpandora.org/?page=detail&app=gigalomania_ptitseb [[User:Mdwh\|Mdwh]] ([[User talk:Mdwh\|talk]]) 00:21, 5 June 2013 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:26, 1 January 2012
Line 135:		Line 135:
	:::Ok I see you already spend some time to create the things as it be. Well I suggest to rename the pages as pointed out above. This allows good autocomplete and keeps the articles focused on exactly one topic. Would this be fine to you? --[[User:ABC\|ABC]] 10:35, 29 April 2011 (MEST)		:::Ok I see you already spend some time to create the things as it be. Well I suggest to rename the pages as pointed out above. This allows good autocomplete and keeps the articles focused on exactly one topic. Would this be fine to you? --[[User:ABC\|ABC]] 10:35, 29 April 2011 (MEST)
	::::I don't understand, how are you proposing to rename them? If you mean moving all three software lists into a single article, and separating the unreleased/WIP games into a separate article, then I'm against that... it's worse for readers and harder for editors. I think "good autocomplete" in the search box matters very little, to be honest - the important thing is for articles to be ''connected'' so that what you're looking for is easy to find from a related topic, and I think that is the case already. All of the related articles mention each other in their introductions. [[User:Esn\|Esn]] 02:34, 30 April 2011 (MEST)		::::I don't understand, how are you proposing to rename them? If you mean moving all three software lists into a single article, and separating the unreleased/WIP games into a separate article, then I'm against that... it's worse for readers and harder for editors. I think "good autocomplete" in the search box matters very little, to be honest - the important thing is for articles to be ''connected'' so that what you're looking for is easy to find from a related topic, and I think that is the case already. All of the related articles mention each other in their introductions. [[User:Esn\|Esn]] 02:34, 30 April 2011 (MEST)
		+
		+	== Gigalomania ==
		+
		+	Hi, I'm the author of Gigalomania - I just wanted to point out that it no longer uses FMOD (which, being closed source, is listed as being a problem), but instead uses SDL_mixer. Also it no longer uses the original data files, but comes with its own (so it's more a game in itself now rather than a game engine). (It's still a work in progress - some of the graphics are rubbish placeholders, but at least it runs on its own now :)). I've also improved the support for Debian now, if that helps (easy to create .deb installer files).
		+
		+	Please let me know if you want any more info on it. [[User:Mdwh\|Mdwh]] 14:26, 1 January 2012 (CET)

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 ::Anyway, I do think that at least the two major sections ("possible" and "improbable") should be separated, so that it's made clear that "improbable" has a different mandate than the rest of the article. I'm going to do that right now, actually, since I think it would help avoid the confusion that you fell victim to. [[User:Esn|Esn]] 09:42, 29 April 2011 (MEST)
 :::Ok I see you already spend some time to create the things as it be. Well I suggest to rename the pages as pointed out above. This allows good autocomplete and keeps the articles focused on exactly one topic. Would this be fine to you? --[[User:ABC|ABC]] 10:35, 29 April 2011 (MEST)
-::::I don't understand, how are you proposing to rename them? If you mean moving all three software lists into a single article, and separating the unreleased/WIP games into a separate article, then I'm against that... it's worse for readers and harder for editors. I think "good autocomplete" in the search box matters very little, to be honest - the important thing is for articles to be ''connected'' so that what you're looking for is easy to find from a related topic, and I think that is the case already. [[User:Esn|Esn]] 02:33, 30 April 2011 (MEST)
+::::I don't understand, how are you proposing to rename them? If you mean moving all three software lists into a single article, and separating the unreleased/WIP games into a separate article, then I'm against that... it's worse for readers and harder for editors. I think "good autocomplete" in the search box matters very little, to be honest - the important thing is for articles to be ''connected'' so that what you're looking for is easy to find from a related topic, and I think that is the case already. All of the related articles mention each other in their introductions. [[User:Esn|Esn]] 02:34, 30 April 2011 (MEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:33, 30 April 2011
Line 134:		Line 134:
	::Anyway, I do think that at least the two major sections ("possible" and "improbable") should be separated, so that it's made clear that "improbable" has a different mandate than the rest of the article. I'm going to do that right now, actually, since I think it would help avoid the confusion that you fell victim to. [[User:Esn\|Esn]] 09:42, 29 April 2011 (MEST)		::Anyway, I do think that at least the two major sections ("possible" and "improbable") should be separated, so that it's made clear that "improbable" has a different mandate than the rest of the article. I'm going to do that right now, actually, since I think it would help avoid the confusion that you fell victim to. [[User:Esn\|Esn]] 09:42, 29 April 2011 (MEST)
	:::Ok I see you already spend some time to create the things as it be. Well I suggest to rename the pages as pointed out above. This allows good autocomplete and keeps the articles focused on exactly one topic. Would this be fine to you? --[[User:ABC\|ABC]] 10:35, 29 April 2011 (MEST)		:::Ok I see you already spend some time to create the things as it be. Well I suggest to rename the pages as pointed out above. This allows good autocomplete and keeps the articles focused on exactly one topic. Would this be fine to you? --[[User:ABC\|ABC]] 10:35, 29 April 2011 (MEST)
		+	::::I don't understand, how are you proposing to rename them? If you mean moving all three software lists into a single article, and separating the unreleased/WIP games into a separate article, then I'm against that... it's worse for readers and harder for editors. I think "good autocomplete" in the search box matters very little, to be honest - the important thing is for articles to be ''connected'' so that what you're looking for is easy to find from a related topic, and I think that is the case already. [[User:Esn\|Esn]] 02:33, 30 April 2011 (MEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:35, 29 April 2011
Line 133:		Line 133:
	::As for the "improbable" section, that was transferred over by Maplesugarlover from the newbie-oriented [[Will X run on the Pandora?]] article. I was against it when it was done, because of the basic problem of the open-ended mandate - there are countless things that ''won't'' run on the Pandora, so how can you maintain such a thing? It's okay when it's in a simple article meant for newbies that just answers some of their more common questions about whether "Windows" or a "PS2 emulator" will run, but go further than that and I'm not sure what the point is... basically, we were discussing it on [[Talk:Will X run on the Pandora?\|the talk page]] and I was waiting for Blue Protoman's opinion, but he seems to be taking a short sabbatical.		::As for the "improbable" section, that was transferred over by Maplesugarlover from the newbie-oriented [[Will X run on the Pandora?]] article. I was against it when it was done, because of the basic problem of the open-ended mandate - there are countless things that ''won't'' run on the Pandora, so how can you maintain such a thing? It's okay when it's in a simple article meant for newbies that just answers some of their more common questions about whether "Windows" or a "PS2 emulator" will run, but go further than that and I'm not sure what the point is... basically, we were discussing it on [[Talk:Will X run on the Pandora?\|the talk page]] and I was waiting for Blue Protoman's opinion, but he seems to be taking a short sabbatical.
	::Anyway, I do think that at least the two major sections ("possible" and "improbable") should be separated, so that it's made clear that "improbable" has a different mandate than the rest of the article. I'm going to do that right now, actually, since I think it would help avoid the confusion that you fell victim to. [[User:Esn\|Esn]] 09:42, 29 April 2011 (MEST)		::Anyway, I do think that at least the two major sections ("possible" and "improbable") should be separated, so that it's made clear that "improbable" has a different mandate than the rest of the article. I'm going to do that right now, actually, since I think it would help avoid the confusion that you fell victim to. [[User:Esn\|Esn]] 09:42, 29 April 2011 (MEST)
		+	:::Ok I see you already spend some time to create the things as it be. Well I suggest to rename the pages as pointed out above. This allows good autocomplete and keeps the articles focused on exactly one topic. Would this be fine to you? --[[User:ABC\|ABC]] 10:35, 29 April 2011 (MEST)

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 ::Chronological ordering is not needed for port requests, and any information can be put into the "notes/remarks" section. I personally think that a coder can pick something very quickly out of the list as it is currently organized. Did you have something specific in mind?
 ::As for the "improbable" section, that was transferred over by Maplesugarlover from the newbie-oriented [[Will X run on the Pandora?]] article. I was against it when it was done, because of the basic problem of the open-ended mandate - there are countless things that ''won't'' run on the Pandora, so how can you maintain such a thing? It's okay when it's in a simple article meant for newbies that just answers some of their more common questions about whether "Windows" or a "PS2 emulator" will run, but go further than that and I'm not sure what the point is... basically, we were discussing it on [[Talk:Will X run on the Pandora?|the talk page]] and I was waiting for Blue Protoman's opinion, but he seems to be taking a short sabbatical.
-::Anyway, I do think that at least the two major sections ("possible" and "improbable") should be separated, so that it's made that "improbable" has a different mandate than the rest of the article. I'm going to do that right now, actually, since I think it would help avoid the confusion that you fell victim to. [[User:Esn|Esn]] 09:42, 29 April 2011 (MEST)
+::Anyway, I do think that at least the two major sections ("possible" and "improbable") should be separated, so that it's made clear that "improbable" has a different mandate than the rest of the article. I'm going to do that right now, actually, since I think it would help avoid the confusion that you fell victim to. [[User:Esn|Esn]] 09:42, 29 April 2011 (MEST)

@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
 ::Okay, Maplesugarlover, coming to the rescue. ;) The goal of this page is #1, bingo. It's for do-able port requests that someone wants that might get picked up by a developer. Sometimes developers come here to get ideas.
-::Released software and WIP software are already covered in the the three released/WIP software lists: [[software projects]], [[emulator list]] and [[games]] (granted, the WIP list isn't organized in "software projects" as well as I'd like, but that's because I want to do it carefully and haven't had time to work on it yet). The reasons for this system were explained in various discussions over the past year mostly between myself, Maplesugarlover, Cheese and Blue Protoman. Basically, there are three articles because those are the three major Pandora software categories which each require a different table structure, and the WIP are listed at the bottom because that makes editing easier for maintainers while having no negative consequences for the reader.
+::Released software and WIP software are already covered in the three released/WIP software lists: [[software projects]], [[emulator list]] and [[games]] (granted, the WIP list isn't organized in "software projects" as well as I'd like, but that's because I want to do it carefully and haven't had time to work on it yet). The reasons for this system were hashed out in various discussions over the past year mostly between myself, Maplesugarlover, Cheese and Blue Protoman. Basically, there are three articles because those are the three major Pandora software categories which each require a different table structure, and the WIP are listed at the bottom because that makes editing easier for maintainers while having no negative consequences for the reader.
 ::Chronological ordering is not needed for port requests, and any information can be put into the "notes/remarks" section. I personally think that a coder can pick something very quickly out of the list as it is currently organized. Did you have something specific in mind?
 ::As for the "improbable" section, that was transferred over by Maplesugarlover from the newbie-oriented [[Will X run on the Pandora?]] article. I was against it when it was done, because of the basic problem of the open-ended mandate - there are countless things that ''won't'' run on the Pandora, so how can you maintain such a thing? It's okay when it's in a simple article meant for newbies that just answers some of their more common questions about whether "Windows" or a "PS2 emulator" will run, but go further than that and I'm not sure what the point is... basically, we were discussing it on [[Talk:Will X run on the Pandora?|the talk page]] and I was waiting for Blue Protoman's opinion, but he seems to be taking a short sabbatical.
-::Anyway, I do think that at least the two major sections ("probable" and "improbable") should be separated, so that it's made that "improbable" has a different mandate than the rest of the article. I'm going to do that right now, actually, since I think it would help avoid the confusion that you fell victim to. [[User:Esn|Esn]] 09:42, 29 April 2011 (MEST)
+::Anyway, I do think that at least the two major sections ("possible" and "improbable") should be separated, so that it's made that "improbable" has a different mandate than the rest of the article. I'm going to do that right now, actually, since I think it would help avoid the confusion that you fell victim to. [[User:Esn|Esn]] 09:42, 29 April 2011 (MEST)