> . > The only thing I would like to ask is to not forget the translators, > and the consequences for the way they can deliver their contributions. > Thanks.
I'm afraid that the current arrangements for translators are far from perfect: - translators have to deal with JavaScript's string quoting and encoding rules, which are not particularly user friendly - translators have to use subversion To deal with the second issue, I think it makes sense to keep translations at the upcoming, TiddlySpace-powered tiddlywiki.org, removing the need for translators to learn git or subversion (there are already quite a few translations at tiddlyspace.com). Dealing with the JavaScript issue could be done by moving to a tiddler slice and section syntax, admittedly a fairly significant core change. Cheers Jeremy > Ton van Rooijen. > > On 21 jan, 12:28, Paul Downey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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. > -- 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.
