> I didn't say "discard". The svn repo would remain in place, with full > history. Reviewing that history would require an extra step, but still > be possible.
I can live with freezing trac.tiddlywiki.org and svn.tiddlywiki.org and starting with an empty list in github with only actionable tickets open which get fixed quickly. Chris has demonstrated this approach works well with TiddlySpace. > A driving force behind moving to github is to remove both the > perception and reality of any Osmosoft priority over priorities. If > you keep your own fork of TiddlyWiki on github, and manage it in a > shareable way, then it becomes easy for your changes and fixes to be > merged into an official core, or even for your version to be become > preferred. Perception is the key word here. I can fork TiddlyWiki as of now, but it wouldn't be The TiddlyWiki that everyone else uses; the one anointed by Jeremy Ruston. What has hampered TiddlyWiki development is a need to remain backwards compatible with a myriad of adaptors, plugins and tweaks which hijack, eval and monkey-patch the core in unpredictable ways. I think most developers quickly find git preferable to svn, if only because of being able to work offline, and stage changes, and provide and manage patches in an almost entertaining way via github. Backwards compatibility and consensus are hard issues to tackle and are orthogonal to github (v) svn/trac, though new tools with a clean slate can only help progress. -- Paul (psd) http://blog.whatfettle.com -- 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.
