> ... the core team should do everything possible to facilitate > the efforts of plugin authors to keep their code viable and up-to-date > with the latest core code rather than putting the onus onto the plugin > developer to scramble and catch up." > > I think this is unfair. Any TiddlyWiki changes that break > compatibility, or even might break compatibility are made into tickets > and put on the release roadmap. Typically each point release has 15-20 > tickets and there is plenty of time between a ticket being put on the > roadmap and the release including that ticket - indeed the main > complaint is that the release process is too slow. I don't understand > the accusation that plugin developers need to "scramble and catch up".
Indeed. One of the advantages of the monolithic repository comes from cooking plugins and verticals against the latest core version from subversion. We've spotted quite a few issues before even a beta is released. > Although it may not have been visible, I was a considerable advocate > for Eric in incorporating his changes into the core, often against the > judgement of others at Osmosoft. Quite. And to somewhat simplify my position, I've been a strong advocate for removing features from the core, and devolving them into plugins. > 2) I think the move to github will make development easier, but in > itself won't change the perception of Osmosoft's priorities. The old > adage: "Don't expect a technological change to solve a social problem" > applies. I welcome the move to github (it will make core maintenance > easier), but I don't expect it, in itself, to change perception. > Having said that, introducing new working practices along with the > change to github, can change perception. Quite so. > "The tyranny of the legacy" > I think this is a difficult area. One of the reason I take a fairly > conservative approach is that there is no plugin upgrade mechanism for > TiddlyWiki. Which means if a user upgrades their tiddlywiki and it > stops working it is actually quite difficult for them to get it > working again. Even if the plugin developer has upgraded their plugin, > the plugin is not upgraded automatically when the user upgrades their > tiddlywiki. I think this is the biggest issue for TiddlyWiki. Most people expect minor releases to be backwards compatible, so maybe we should bunch up a group of breaking changes and plan a 3.0 release. I'd suggest a different default theme and colour scheme at the same time which could be as simple as a different ColorPalette and a font-size: 1.0em; > Some of my comments above may sound like they are defending the status > quo - they are not meant to be. Rather they are explaining some of the > reasons around why things are as they are. I applaud Martin for a reasoned response. The move to git/github isn't a silver bullet, but it's an exciting opportunity, let's not spoil it by personal attacks, please. -- 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.
