Talk:List of VMs

From CSLabsWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

LDAP attribute?

Should we add a boolean value to the table about whether the VM has LDAP authentication? — Ranok 08:14, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Asked Zach, and he said go for it — Ranok 12:15, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Create Old VMs page?

Should we make a different page for VMs which are no longer in use and most likely never will be? It would make looking at the current list much easier. — Matt McCarrell 11:10, 28 May 2008 (EST)

? — Matt McCarrell 13:11, 31 July 2008 (EST)
Such as? --Shephezj 16:46, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
Actually I just tried it and kinda got it to work. It only displays the name on the page though. See Old VMs. — Matt McCarrell 19:11, 2 August 2008 (EST)
I don't think that's the right approach. We shouldn't use separate templates for VMs and OldVMs. I'm still not convinced we need separate pages but, if we do, categorizing oldVMs individually as "oldVM" would be better than a separate template (although the DPL code is a bit more complicated). What VMs do you see as being "old"?--Shephezj 17:35, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
I propose that we use the "Development status" attribute of the VMs template. Something like: "Development status: Obsolete". — Ryan Lewis 18:23, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Seconded. I'll make the changes. --Shephezj 18:58, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
As Cluster already uses "Deprecated", I'll change to that for now. Anyone have any preference on Obsolete vs. Deprecated? --Shephezj
I think obsolete is more fitting. — Ryan Lewis 00:28, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
"Obsolete" it is. Do you want to make any necessary changes? --Shephezj 14:20, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Will do. — Ryan Lewis 15:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Also, I propose "Pending Deletion" (and then "Deleted") for any VMs that are no longer in use and do not need to be kept for historical reasons. --Shephezj 19:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Should we use the {{deletion_proposed}} tag too? — Ryan Lewis 00:29, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
I thought about that, but, since we're proposing deleting the VM (and probably not the page about the VM), it probably isn't applicable. My opinion is that since it's proposing deletion of a non-wiki object, the discussion and such should occur off-wiki. Any other opinions on this? --Shephezj 14:20, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Okay, I wasn't sure if the wiki pages were going to be deleted once the image disappeared (I don't think it hurts to leave them, btw). If they're gonna stay, then we shouldn't use the template. — Ryan Lewis 15:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Makes some sense (see the last sentence). So "Pending Deletion" for VMs that are pending deletion and then removing the VM template from the page after it has been deleted. I think it could be argued that (as an example) the "Moe" docs page still talks about the Moe VM even if it has since been deleted. Most of the fields in the template still make sense (when it existed, it had a maintainer, OS, etc.). Might it make sense to keep it around for record-keeping's sake (removing it from the "List of VMs", of course)? (yes, I know we could look at the history, but that's not terribly user friendly and sticking it in an "Old VM" or "Deleted" category would make it clear that it's an old/deleted VM) --Shephezj 18:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)