Quite interesting ... I like the idea, having a repo, that doesn't change weekly. I also like the idea, using the newest stuff.
I think, having the core moved to github, can provide both. I feel comfortable if a stable core moves on every half a year of even every year. On the other hand, I think the core needs to react more quickly, if there is a major jQuery release. I think the decision, to use it, created this dependency. At least, there should be a beta, available immidiately. Having a new (stable) core release IMO can wait until there is the first bugfix version. (http://docs.jquery.com/Roadmap no need to have 2 (stable) core releases within one month). I have no problem, if there are 2 (beta) releases within one month. Since github is a network of trust, every user can decide, which core to use. If you like the conservative approach, go with the conservative core. If you like the community approach, go with the community core, if there is one. I think this is very common, with open source projects. In the long run both will win. ===== I think backwards compatibility is important. And I think the TW core does very well. But as a user, I don't expect, a 4-5 year old plugin to work with the newest core. It is a nice to have. But if it means the core development, needs to be inactive, no thanks. (long live IE6) And I also think it isn't necessary. Think of TiddlySpace. Every plugin, that programmatically saved a tiddler was broken due to missing fields. At the very beginning there were some posts in the group. But since several month. Nothing ... Either, the users don't use these plugins anymore, or they got them fixed. There was no need to stop the core. -m -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWikiDev" group. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywikidev@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywikidev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev?hl=en.
