Difference between revisions of "Talk:OMP"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==New status== | ||
| + | |||
Because public development has been closed, I think removing or redefining the "Network Issues" and "Installation" section is necessary. What you think? | Because public development has been closed, I think removing or redefining the "Network Issues" and "Installation" section is necessary. What you think? | ||
| + | |||
| + | :What about moving the current state into an article "OMP 0.2" for acheiving it, for the case you go back to development? Also as it will be very hard to make people delete OMP from their HDs, the installation guide could be kept that way. I could make a big red "Obsolete addon" warning on top of it, so it should be clear, that they cannot expect you to do support for this version. --[[User:Urwumpe|Urwumpe]] 11:49, 6 September 2006 (MSD) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I think changing the "Network issues" into something like "Current development issues" and replacing "Installation" with a decent history entry might be even better. If nobody has problems with it, I'd like to make something up in the article for the start, so we can discuss about it a bit clearer.--[[User:Face|Face]] 22:38, 7 September 2006 (MSD) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:38, 7 September 2006
New status[edit]
Because public development has been closed, I think removing or redefining the "Network Issues" and "Installation" section is necessary. What you think?
- What about moving the current state into an article "OMP 0.2" for acheiving it, for the case you go back to development? Also as it will be very hard to make people delete OMP from their HDs, the installation guide could be kept that way. I could make a big red "Obsolete addon" warning on top of it, so it should be clear, that they cannot expect you to do support for this version. --Urwumpe 11:49, 6 September 2006 (MSD)
- I think changing the "Network issues" into something like "Current development issues" and replacing "Installation" with a decent history entry might be even better. If nobody has problems with it, I'd like to make something up in the article for the start, so we can discuss about it a bit clearer.--Face 22:38, 7 September 2006 (MSD)