Topic: New Modsite Ideas :D (Read 77296 times)

Amanda Folson · « **on:** April 22, 2009, 12:41:21 PM »

Well folks, with some new releases coming up we feel that the modsite is due for an update as well. Some people have come to me with ideas, but I'd like to see what the community comes up with

Some things people have said they'd like are:

Better version control - currently it's a pain to keep more than one version of a module up there.
Different ways to sort searches - search by IRCd (would require an IRCd option for modules, kinda like choosing BotServ or Chanserv now)
LDAP login - So your forum/wiki/bugs login will work on the modsite as well

This is a good start, but since I'm not a mod author/regular user of the site it's hard to say what needs improvement. Here's your chance to tell us!

mooncup · « **Reply #1 on:** April 22, 2009, 12:45:09 PM »

It needs an admin called "mooncup" and an autoban on copied modules. IE if a hypothetical user called, say, "TheQueen" was to copy a module totally and claim it to be their own it shouldn't be allowed on the site.

On a moar srs note, I actually quite liked the modules site, but the things you mentioned (especially LDAP :3) are important. I also think a way to rate a module without leaving a comment / registering might be an idea, as it would encourage more people to rate them.

Amanda Folson · « **Reply #2 on:** April 22, 2009, 01:46:22 PM »

Yes, I like it too but it needs an updated admin panel for sure

We had also discussed a community rating system that would help determine if modules got an Anope seal of approval or some such thing. Basically, regular users could vote, and trusted members (such as those in the contributor group

) could vote on modules based on their experience with it. If enough people voted that it was good or bad, it would be approved or denied for some sort of QA status. I see some flaws in a system like this - mainly that we don't have many contributors to contribute to such a thing. We should also fix that ^_^

The autoban on duplicates could be done - we could compare hash values. I'd also like to compare the content though (any of you ever used turnitin.com?). Basically, you can check to see how much of the content is like other content on the site. Too much of the same content will flag the module

That would be a tricky system to implement though since people are obviously going to be using similar Anope functions.

I think allowing comments/votes without registration is bad...that's not really leaving feedback for the author. It's a somewhat half-assed bump for the module

mooncup · « **Reply #3 on:** April 22, 2009, 02:02:59 PM »

No, I think comments should be registration only. However an ip based voting system for non-registered users might mean modules get more than 3 ratings each.

Having never seen the admin panel I can't comment on that - but I definately think more power for contributors is a good thing

Also if you trust me make me an admin ^_^

Charles Kingsley · « **Reply #4 on:** April 22, 2009, 02:30:51 PM »

Do we rewrite or fix up.

Discuss.

mooncup · « **Reply #5 on:** April 22, 2009, 02:33:24 PM »

Ooh Ooh! I'll rewrite it :3

I have nothing better to do when I get back to uni...

Amanda Folson · « **Reply #6 on:** April 22, 2009, 03:35:35 PM »

IP based voting might be ok - but I'd much rather people leave useful feedback as well. Plus if you can see names you can go explore/decide credibility and stuff. That would help wth determining the credibility of the module. Thoughts?

I'm all for a rewrite really...the current site does what it needs to do, but I think it could be expanded a fair amount. I'm also all for burning the data and starting over as well. That'd make it easier in a way because we wouldn't have to deal with migrating to ldap

It also means a lot of the old modules/inactive users can be removed. Obviously active people would already be registered through ldap.

Julian · « **Reply #7 on:** April 22, 2009, 03:42:40 PM »

Quote from: Amanda F. on April 22, 2009, 03:35:35 PM

It also means a lot of the old modules/inactive users can be removed.

Don't remove old modules, some of them still work and some are good use. I found out about a module and had to bug LEthaLity for it as it had been taken off the site.

Charles Kingsley · « **Reply #8 on:** April 22, 2009, 03:44:02 PM »

If we're not migrating any data we would need to have it available for a while as I still have requests for modules we didn't migrate to the current modsite. I asked about a rewrite because the current system does work fairly well until you try and back it up, move it, or do anything that might upset its fragile existence but I will defend the fact that it's been pretty damn good thus far.

So, mooncup if you want to give it a whirl I'm all for it, I suggest we chat more in our secret love channel, build a design specification based upon what is said in here and work from there.

Charles Kingsley · « **Reply #9 on:** April 22, 2009, 03:45:15 PM »

Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2009, 03:42:40 PM

Don't remove old modules, some of them still work and some are good use. I found out about a module and had to bug LEthaLity for it as it had been taken off the site.

We could easily deal with this in a single list grepping for the latest builds of the modules prior to migration.

I have every single module we've ever had including katsklaw's which were pulled from the site if anyone does want them.

mooncup · « **Reply #10 on:** April 22, 2009, 03:45:54 PM »

You're not reading what I'm saying properly D:

I suggest keeping the current system of reg'd users being able to comment + leave a rating, But /also/ allowing unreg'd users to just rate it without leaving a comment (per ip).

mooncup · « **Reply #11 on:** April 22, 2009, 03:47:58 PM »

Quote from: Julian on April 22, 2009, 03:42:40 PM

Don't remove old modules, some of them still work and some are good use. I found out about a module and had to bug LEthaLity for it as it had been taken off the site.

Make a static module archive?

Amanda Folson · « **Reply #12 on:** April 22, 2009, 03:49:05 PM »

Oh no I didnt intend to get rid of them entirely - they'd just be moved to a new "old modsite" (new old modsite...

?)

That way, if module authors came back or someone else took over maintaining the module it would still be there - just not on the new modsite

chaz - I agree that it's a PITA to deal with...and the structure of it makes it near impossible to move it somewhere else without any issues. I think a rewrite is in order too for the way it stores things. It boggles me.

Amanda Folson · « **Reply #13 on:** April 22, 2009, 03:50:40 PM »

Yes I read what you were saying - I like how the rating currently works though because you know who is rating - it allows you to establish trends and patterns. If we notice a person being fair about their ratings and comments, then we have a baseline to establish credibility which means we could make them a contributor ^_^.

Charles Kingsley · « **Reply #14 on:** April 22, 2009, 04:23:20 PM »

So;

Archive in a static fashion the current modsite as legacy and the previous bunch of mods are legacy++
Rewrite site based upon a needs and wants specification to be drawn up over the course of the next fortnight taking into account the feedback/input we've had thus far.

?

Amanda Folson · « **Reply #15 on:** April 22, 2009, 04:27:05 PM »

Yeah that sounds about right. Rob gave me a good start on some requirements - but I'd like to get input from people who actually use the site, not people who run the back end if it. We can't really see the good/bad/ugly as well since we have our own uglies to look at as well. However for this to work we need more people involved in this! *runs off to go spam this link everywhere*

First thing on my list is a new admin panel. Blah.

mooncup · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2009, 12:20:34 AM »

At some point try and grab me in irc (not on friday) and gimme what you have so far in terms of wants and needs.

I'm interested to see how it currently stores the modules, and we need to decide logistics like whether to store the module files as flatfile or in the database (mysql?).

Amanda Folson · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2009, 01:06:15 AM »

iirc, it takes the uploaded file, changes the name to a hash, stores it as the .c file or whatever, and just associates the hash with the author and such. Really the whole thing is a PITA to work with. I'd have to look at it again.

http://www.anope.org/modspec.php

Here are some of the things we want. If people have other ideas I'll gladly put them on there.

Naram Qashat · « **Reply #18 on:** April 23, 2009, 01:09:33 AM »

I think the new module site (whoever makes it) should allow for multiple modules with the same name by different authors as long as they are for different Anope versions. And we need a way to specify either a specific version that the module works with, or a range of versions.

Amanda Folson · « **Reply #19 on:** April 23, 2009, 01:21:24 AM »

I like that idea - it makes it easy for module porters.

I was also thinking about the versions, and I think that would be part of the search feature that needs updating. Currently there are two features that do the same thing on the page - Search and Browse. The Browse page allows you to do a more advanced search than the actual Search page (

) You can select a version of Anope on the browse page and you can select more than one version that it works with.

The RSS feeds also need some attention as it's hard to pull some information out. I'd like to see module/Anope versions if possible. Currently you would have to get the description in order to get that information (poor iFail).

mooncup · « **Reply #20 on:** April 23, 2009, 02:30:08 AM »

Quote from: Naram Qashat on April 23, 2009, 01:09:33 AM

I think the new module site (whoever makes it) should allow for multiple modules with the same name by different authors as long as they are for different Anope versions. And we need a way to specify either a specific version that the module works with, or a range of versions.

Maybe go one-up from that and give module authors the ability to "fork" existing modules.

Then we could have links from the originals to the new versions, so that people know it's still being updated.

Charles Kingsley · « **Reply #21 on:** April 23, 2009, 08:48:30 AM »

Good idea guys; think that's great.

Amanda's put a note on the main site so with a bit of luck we'll get some attention for this?

I was also wondering as a side note whether anyone would be interested in us starting up a anope-users mailing list like we used to have where we could share stuff like this?

Andrew B. · « **Reply #22 on:** April 23, 2009, 09:00:12 AM »

If... I recall correctly, the admin panel consists of... well, just that... nothing. :p phpmyadmin? :p *remembers approving modules manually..*

Perhaps some sort of 'moderation' level user group would be of benefit as well. Users, Authors, Moderators, Admins? I don't know.

I agree with the IP based.. rating system and registered users on voting only, that's a logical thing... LDAP is obvious, and sexy.

I nominate mooncup, for administrator.

Anope needs a new layout.. so maybe the mod site would be a good starting point for a redesign. :p

Charles Kingsley · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2009, 09:05:48 AM »

The admin panel does more than that; you may be referring the news backend which was until recently phpmyadmin ;p.

The admin panel does have issues there's no denying that but it's worked until now and will work should this subproject fall through.

I approved a module last night by clicking on a hyperlink, happy days.

Andrew B. · « **Reply #24 on:** April 23, 2009, 09:13:02 AM »

I think it was..entering version 1.7.24 into the system.

If I remember right... that's also something that needs to be built in, a color coding system so if the module is out of date.... it will be red, meaning it's not up to date with either of the two current 'mainstream' releases..... People like colors.

Wasn't some person. I don't remember his name, it may have started with a V, making a back end for.. SMF and.. the website to work together?

News:

Author Topic: New Modsite Ideas :D (Read 77296 times)