= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ZHD comments on New report: Intelligence Explosion Microeconomics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (244)
I like the way you're approaching the problem. However, I think the temptation for a familiar conclusion is too great and that you might be missing some possibilities.
See:
The solution you're putting forth suggests that there needs to be a single person in charge of coalescing the many suggestions and edits.
But the great thing about version control is the ability to branch and tag. There could be an arbitrary number of editors who each have their own branch and set of improvements that they are working on—where non-editor contributors could switch branches and commit changes specific to that branch's needs.
In the end, all branches would need to merge into the trunk. This process doesn't necessarily need a single editor either.
Cheers
One person's "familiar conclusion" is another's "best practices", I suppose.
Not really. Many suggestions and edits put forth by random people, e.g., here, aren't edits that I think an editor should really make. Nor do I really think a single person is necessary; again, a well-defined style guide would go a long way.
I understand how CVSes work, and I have no problem with collaborative editing. But papers are not coding projects. There are a lot of global things going on that need to happen correctly. Even open source projects tend to have lead developers, no?