I think we're making a bigger deal of this than the issue warrants. TW has been an "ongoing development version" for as long as I've used it. What we have here is a bug that was missed. Nothing more, nothing less. As far as bad bugs go, this one was also pretty minor. Didn't cost me more than a couple of minutes and I lost absolutely no data (thanks to the "pre-upgrade" backup). No harm, no foul, IMO.
As for the rest of it, TW's are all self-contained and locally hosted. If you want to keep using an older release that's your prerogative. I've held onto older releases a time or two myself when some plugin I needed failed to work with the latest (which happened during the transition to 2.0, not recently). Eventually, the plugin was patched or I decided to move without it (or fix it myself). Nobody _forces_ me to move on though, and it's disingenuous to imply they do. This is an open source project, so if you feel strongly enough that your "freedom of choice" is being unduly limited, fork the project and maintain it yourself. In light of this, the only policy changes I'd like to see are: 1. Having old versions of TW archived somewhere, perhaps on a tiddlywiki.org wiki page. May want to put a notice on them that they aren't being maintained, though, either in the "HelloThere" tiddler, or like you do for the beta version. 2. Making sure the tiddler timeline and last updated information is accurate. I don't know when the BetaUpdatePlugin info was added to [[HelloThere]], but I wouldn't have made a point to check this year. Same thing for [[NewFeatures]], except that one hasn't "changed" since 2007. If nothing else, I think you'd want good date values so that the RSS feeds are accurate. -- Matt On Jun 26, 2:21 pm, Morris Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > However whether people have a choice between a known stable version on > the backstage upgrade or an ongoing development version is still an > issue. > > What the decision to continue with one version and put it on the > backstage really means is that you are using all upgraders as beta > testers deliberately and not inadvertently as I said before. You've > just said you intend using them to find anticipated plugin problems. > That should be a choice of the user. > > Surely the argument that if you don't force them to take the ongoing > development you won't get enough users is questionable on a number of > grounds. Freedom of choice not being the least. > > Much of the world is in turmoil about this issue right now. This has > been been Microsoft's policy and it hasn't won them friends but has > spawned an army of people trying to get around being forced to accept > an ongoing series of buggy operating systems. > > > That means it will become increasingly difficult for > > users of the legacy line to migrate to the jQuery line. > > Again that should be their choice. There are many people who have been > burned by adopting new versions of software too early and have made it > their policy of not being an early adopter. For most people this is a > wise policy for those who have no desire to be distracted from their > tasks by something that used to work and through none of their doing > now doesn't. > > > It also means > > that people who want to write widely used plugins won't be able to use > > jQuery, since not all users will have jQuery. > > I don't think this is a strong argument since 2.5.0 is already stable > and contains jQuery With a few 'hooks' being developed for people to > easily tap into it could spur plenty of jQuery plugins. > > It is the decision to start changing TiddlyWiki functions in the core > at this stage that is the real danger of disruption. I am not saying > that it shouldn't be done. But it is a big intricate job fraught many > possibilities of mistakes and unintended consequences. > > > So I think it is better to have the one development line, take more > > care about testing, and ensure problems are fixed quickly. > > While you may have the manpower to do the development I doubt if you > have it to put out urgent fires on a multitude of fronts on every new > release. This recent release already has a few unresolved issues that > may only be the tip of the iceberg we are sailing toward. > > What I am trying to say, without using capital letters, is you must > give people a choice. By only putting the developing version's > upgrade in the backstage you are not giving people a choice. As you > said earlier that is your intention and I say that is a mistake, not > necessarily only from a technical viewpoint but from a political one > as well. > > It could be as simple as putting a choice between 2.5.0 and 2.5.x with > sufficient information to allow users to either join in the fun or > just get on with their needs without any fuss. > > I feel I have made my point and won't broach the subject again since > the decision has already been made. > > Morris > > On Jun 26, 5:28 pm, Martin Budden <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I understand the argument for having two development lines, but there > > is a danger as well. Namely that we won't get enough people using the > > "advanced" jQuery line, and incompatibilities with existing plugins > > won't be found. That means it will become increasingly difficult for > > users of the legacy line to migrate to the jQuery line. It also means > > that people who want to write widely used plugins won't be able to use > > jQuery, since not all users will have jQuery. > > > So I think it is better to have the one development line, take more > > care about testing, and ensure problems are fixed quickly. > > > Martin > > > 2009/6/25 Ton van Rooijen <[email protected]>: > > > > see > > > alsohttp://groups.google.co.uk/group/TiddlyWikiDev/browse_thread/thread/c... > > > where kind of same plee was made for splitting a temporarily > > > continued support of "legacy" 2.4.3 and > > > a separate 2.5-line with jQuery for the advanced users that > > > intentionally want to be ahead of the pack. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" 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/TiddlyWikiDev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
