On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Purodha Blissenbach
On 25.09.2015 23:34, Johan Jönsson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Nick Wilson (Quiddity)
> On 25.09.2015 21:59, Purodha Blissenbach wrote:
>>> There will be a new beta feature that ...
>> under the heading 'Changes this week' is a contradiction. Either
>> is there since this week, or it will be there in the future but
>> this week.
I wrote the "new beta feature" line with the future tense, to
recurring "The new version of MediaWiki will be on [...]" item
seemed logical to me, because when the message is delivered on
feature will not yet be available, but will become available
(Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday) as the deployments roll out to each
wikis. I think that is the intended use of that section, but
Hmmm, I've now looked through the last few issues, and I see a
present and future tense in the "Changes this week" section (e.g
"You can soon watch when something is added to or removed from a
but mostly present tense. I agree this is worth
I've previously mainly been using "now" but changed everything
"changes this week" to the future tense because there has been some
confusion: when it's delivered on the Monday, editors have gone
looking for a certain feature or change they have been promised in
present tense, only to find it hasn't been deployed yet and won't
until e.g. Thursday.
Strangely enough, I had always silently understood "this week" as
of my translation, neither the deployment of the newsletter nor the
the features. So, yes, it should be future tense on Mondays -
although - if
people go to try it after reading, they may find features are not
get frustrated and hateful :-) So why not have "Changes gone life
or so, giving people experienes of success, since we can be sure
work at once for them?
(Sorry for the late reply, was travelling over the weekend.)
That's mainly what "recent changes" is meant to cover. The benefit of
calling it "recent changes", I think, is that it's mainly things from
the week before the newsletter is distributed, but if we add
that's a little bit older, we don't need another section. You think
another solution would be better?