"That sounds like you do not expect other developers to analyze or even contribute to the core"
Actually my expectation is not that people don't look at the core, but that people don't look at the history. >From a personal point of view I practically never look at source code history, other than immediate history (that is the bit of history I've created while I'm working on a particular feature or bug fix). I'm not talking just about TiddlyWiki, but about every software project I have ever worked on. This is also true of many/most of the developers I have worked with. I personally find that there is no point in looking at history to understand a bit of code, whether it is to fix a bug or implement a new feature. In my view source code history is a bit like credit card slips - you look at this month's slips when you reconcile your credit card bill, but never look at them again. To me the desire to keep history is a bit like the desire some people have to keep their old credit card slips: "Oh no, we can't throw them away." So my desire for a clean start in git is no more than my desire to throw away that pile of credit card slips sitting in the corner. But as I said if there really are people who want to look at them, I happy to keep them. But I'm not happy to keep them if there are just a few people saying "those credit card slips might come in useful sometime in the future." Martin On 7 February 2011 19:27, FND <[email protected]> wrote: >> One of the reasons I'm in favour of not importing the history into git >> is that a clean repository is in some ways attractive to new users. >> I'm in particular thinking of a friend of Paul's who was interested in >> doing some work on TiddlyWiki, but didn't bother in the end because >> the repository took so long to download. > > As you've already stated, that won't be an issue anymore once there's a > separate repository for the core. Indeed, that new repo will be tiny > compared to most serious projects. In other words, My Hair is a Bird. > >> What I am wary of here is policy being influenced by people who are >> not affected by the policy. > > That sounds like you do not expect other developers to analyze or even > contribute to the core. As stated earlier*, this notion is a massive > problem of and in this community. > >> In other words do Fred and Eric want the history in git because: >> a) moving the history to git is "a good thing" >> or >> b) they actually look at the history quite often, and not moving the >> history to git would be an inconvenience > > Both, but primarily (b) - so I *do* expect being directly affected, both > as a (potential) core and third-party developer. > > Just for the record, IMO even (a) would be sufficient, as the cost of > retaining history is negligible. > > > -- F. > > > * http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev/msg/603776133060a464 > > -- > 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.
