On May 6, 7:38 pm, FND wrote:
Thanks for taking my, sometimes editorializing, questions seriously.
> These are good questions, Morris.
> However, they're very jQuery-centric. I was thinking of a (still
> somewhat vague) bigger picture - so in that context, jQuery might be
> considered an implem
These are good questions, Morris.
However, they're very jQuery-centric. I was thinking of a (still
somewhat vague) bigger picture - so in that context, jQuery might be
considered an implementation detail. (Nevertheless, the jQuery
integration was a catalyst for reviving this longstanding issue.
On May 2, 1:43 am, FND wrote:
> That depends.
> If we were to embark on the 3.0 path without being encumbered by the
> issue of backwards compatibility, I believe that could very well be
> worth the effort of providing bug fixes for the legacy (2.x) line.
That is a good insight and practical.
> I am reluctant to run two branches - doing so is a
> significant amount of extra work and I'm not convinced that the
> benefits it brings are worth it.
That depends.
If we were to embark on the 3.0 path without being encumbered by the
issue of backwards compatibility, I believe that could very
Running two branches makes sense if we plan to do potentially
disruptive changes on one of the branches. I read into your posting an
assumption that using jQuery will, at least for a while, make TW less
stable. jQuery makes TW bigger, but as long as we are careful, it
should not introduce any extr
Martin,
In my opinion we would have, in SVN terms, a temporary period of 2
branches of TW.
The first branch, let's call it "Stable TW", starts off from 2.4.3 and
is only updated in case of serious bugs. No new functionality
whatsoever. So over time there will be a new "Stable TW" called 2.4.4
and
On 29 Apr 2009, at 12:38, cd...@peermore.com wrote:
> On Apr 29, 12:11 pm, Martin Budden wrote:
>> OK, I understand this. What's your view when 2.5.1 becomes
>> available -
>> this does have added value (bug fixes etc). Should 2.5.1 then become
>> the default upgrade? If not, what would be the
On Apr 24, 2:24 am, Eric Shulman wrote:
> However, regardless of the elegance and technical correctness of any
> engineering principles that are applied, these engineering
> considerations should be, in my view, secondary to the needs and
> interests of the TiddlyWiki end-user/author community.
On Apr 29, 12:11 pm, Martin Budden wrote:
> OK, I understand this. What's your view when 2.5.1 becomes available -
> this does have added value (bug fixes etc). Should 2.5.1 then become
> the default upgrade? If not, what would be the criteria for changing
> the default upgrade from 2.4.3 to 2.5.
OK, I understand this. What's your view when 2.5.1 becomes available -
this does have added value (bug fixes etc). Should 2.5.1 then become
the default upgrade? If not, what would be the criteria for changing
the default upgrade from 2.4.3 to 2.5.1?
Martin
2009/4/28 Ton van Rooijen :
>
> Martin,
Martin,
Thought I explained it already more or less implicitly.
I think that for the ordinary user a new release should have added
value, even if it's invisible (e.g. bugfixes are undoubtedly added
value).
TW v2.5.0 however has no added value whatsoever for the thousands,
only added weight.
Plse d
Ton,
I'm interested in why you think 2.4.3 rather than 2.5.0 should be the
latest stable release. 2.5.0 is identical to 2.4.3 except for the
addition of jQuery, and so should be just as stable - indeed it was
designed to be a stable release users could downgrade to if they
experienced any problem
Although I am not completely sure if this is the right thread, here
are my 2 cents:
The "ordinary" user of TW, the ones that just use it as their
scrapbook or GTD-tool, as a blog or as a website, or whatever TWs are
used for, will in general not be interested in the latest and greatest
TW version
> I wonder if it might be worth considering TiddlyWiki 2.x as stable,
> give it a maintainer [...] with regular bug fixing releases.
> And send all these jquery hopefuls off on a 3.x path that is
> considerably more radical and accelerated than the current plans.
Similar approaches have been disc
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:
15 matches
Mail list logo
