Hi Chris, thanks for your thoughts. I have a few remarks:
On Jan 27, 5:06 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Also, the fact is that the current setup, wherein all the > contributors stuff is in the same repo mean that the repo (in part > because it is svn, which is slow in modern terms) is extremely time > consuming to update if you have the whole thing checked out. And > then once you have thing there's so much there that has little to > nothing to do with whatever your current purpose might be. I think with git it could be different. But also svn allows partial checkouts! > > You make a valid point about not knowing which dependencies you need > to build a vertical, but I think that's already true, and already > fixable with cook recipes. Those recipes can use content from all > over the web, not just local disk. Effectively used, that can make > the repositories associated with a repo tight and focused, with > minimal duplication. This is in principle true. In practice this implies that versioned repositories of the plugins exist, which can be accessed by cook. Just pointing to a tw with the plugin is not sufficient, as you may need a specific version. I find cook not so strong with regard to versioning as it does not parse (i.e. check versions) of things it puts together. A possibility is that someone (who???) mirrors on github the repositories of the plugin makers such that plugins and contributor code is available close to the core. However that requires plugin writers to make their own repo, which may be too much. > > -- Lost history. I think just moving to github without history is a > > tremendous waste of knowledge and effort. I can see two relatively > > easy solutions: 1) Import history with svn2git and just continue with > > development (my preference). 2) Ditch history, keep trac/svn online > > AND start on github with a new MAJOR version of tiddlywiki. Then it > > is very clear for humans that a break in the source happened. > > I think maintaining the history of the core will be fine. I'm less > motivated about ditching code history than I am ditching stale > tickets. > Maybe, even if you ditch stale tickets, etc, the whole trac wiki can be imported into git read only in a subdirectory called old (or something like this). Then it is searchable in github. I think the important thing is easy access to old knowledge, not necessarily keeping the old ticket system running. -- 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.
