Markus, I haven't been avoiding this thread, just wasn't sure what to say. I like the idea of using a code repository system, but I have absolutely no experience with those things. I also have a system that works really well for me personally now. It allows very rapid development and testing. And then I can release a new version in just a matter of minutes. Basically, just do one zip and one ftp. I'm hesitant to dive into something new like this--as I just don't really have time to familiarize myself with the software. At some point maybe, but not now...
The recent problems with 3.18 is a good example of why something like this might be valuable, but then again, we had pretty fast response times and fixes. I'm not sure how much faster things would have gone with a version control system in place. I'm also hesitant about other people's tweaks being incorporated into to the core software as I have my own style and taste in programming (for better or for worse). I prefer synthesizing what someone says and then rewriting a patch to fit my taste. The mailing list seems to be working as a good way to manage that process. If there are concerns about upgrading because we never know when a new release will break something unexpectedly (perfectly valid and sometimes true), we could consider a renumbering system. Something like: 3.1.18 3.1.19 3.1.20 3.1.21 etc. Then when we get to one we feel good about. Stable for a while we go to 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 etc. So 3.2 is the last stable release. And 3.2.2 is the cutting edge release. So if you jump from 3.1 to 3.2 to 3.3 etc., you got something more likely bug free. But I won't want to maintain 3.2 and 3.2.2. So if 3.2 is later discovered to have a bug, you have the option of reverting to 3.1, going to 3.2.2 where it is hopefully patched, applying a mailing list patch directly to 3.2.2, or somehow make do until 3.3. I'm just thinking out loud. I think having both a stable and cutting edge release might help. I think of Jami's first experience using a new release with a brand new, but broken action.skin system. In short, I like our system of constant advancement and know we need a system that doesn't add to my workload. But I sympathize with its weaknesses. I'm also open to more discussion on this. Cheers, Dan P.S. If you care to research the various sites you recommended and check the license requirements, and maybe pick one or two that look especially easy to use, I would be willing to take a look. I might be surprized and find I like it better! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BoltWire" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
