On Apr 23, 5:24 pm, Eric Shulman wrote:
> I think that we are really dancing around some practical, as well as
> philosophical, differences of opinion related to the overarching
> question:
>
> "Why, when, and how should a given core change be made?"
I agree and I'll take it a step further:
On Apr 23, 4:06 pm, Eric Shulman wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > I do feel we may be being overly cautious, and if there is scope
> > leakage then it will help refactoring and plugin authors if we
> > understand the problem better and have regression tests to follow.
>
> Unfortunately, BT/Osmosoft's tra
While writing more automated tests is clearly a reasonable thing to
do, it is only one small part of the decision-making process for
determining which core changes should be made and when they should be
released. In addition to various formal testing paradigms (unit,
regression, integration, plat
Can I suggest that we break up the discussion a little? It seems that
on the central jQuery integration issue there is actually a high
degree of agreement that we should keep the thing as "jQuery", and a
fairly high level of agreement that we might still consider adding "$"
in the future, guided b
On 23 Apr 2009, at 16:06, Eric Shulman wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>> I do feel we may be being overly cautious, and if there is scope
>> leakage then it will help refactoring and plugin authors if we
>> understand the problem better and have regression tests to follow.
>
> Unfortunately, BT/Osmosoft's
Paul wrote:
> I do feel we may be being overly cautious, and if there is scope
> leakage then it will help refactoring and plugin authors if we
> understand the problem better and have regression tests to follow.
Unfortunately, BT/Osmosoft's track record on testing is *abysmal*
Currently, there
On Apr 23, 11:44 am, Paul Downey wrote:
> I suggest we continue to use the jquery alias, build more tests for
> "$" and consider flipping to "$" once we understand the problem
> better. I think at this point adding TiddlyWiki special "jq" alias
> will make matters worse, and only add yet
Hi Eric!
I think this might be a better thread to help explain my position, and
how I think we should proceed on this issue.
> On Apr 21, 4:26 am, FND wrote:
>>> not just 'eval'... custom macro handlers, toolbar handlers, hijacks,
>>> etc... can also get invoked within the scope of a locally-
