Hi, I've compared original repository and yours. There are much backwards-compatible changes which IMHO could be easily merged. And there are some backwards-incompatible changes and some changes that I see as tricky or unnecessary, but that's only conclusion after code comparing. Some backwards-incompatible stuff (like ssl support) can be really important for somebody. So personally I need to take closer look at it (to use it in some project).
As for quicklisp, it is easy to use your repository for projects - load weblocks with quicklisp and to put your repository as .quicklisp/local-projects/weblocks so minimal thing to allow your repository testing is setup description. Not sure if there is need to disturb Zach. As for quicklisp name, "weblocks 2" is confusing name, slburson-weblocks or slb-weblocks or similar would be great. As I remember it is popular practice for ruby gems to name gems like this. So I suggest you to write setup instructions for your repository, to write main differences from original repository and announce your repository as recommended branch for testing on weblocks site. воскресенье, 13 января 2013 г., 0:03:48 UTC+2 пользователь Scott L. Burson написал: > > Hi all, > > I don't know if anyone except Brian O'Reilly has looked at my Weblocks > fork (https://github.com/slburson/weblocks). Just to remind you, it has > some incompatible changes, most notably that it uses Bootstrap and jQuery > rather than the original Weblocks CSS and JavaScript libraries. > > Although it still needs more work, I'm thinking it should become the > recommended version of Weblocks for new projects. How do people feel about > that? Of course there are existing Web apps that use the current version, > and we probably don't want to force everyone to convert their apps. > > So I'm thinking we should call the new version Weblocks 2, and ask Zach to > set up a separate Quicklisp package for it. That will allow it to continue > to diverge from the existing version, without inconveniencing anyone who > still wants to use the latter. > > Does that seem reasonable? > > An alternative would be to rename the current one to something like > "weblocks-stable" and let "weblocks" refer to the new one. That might be > appropriate if we were fairly sure that most users would eventually want to > use the new one. I don't think we're at that point yet. > > I'm thinking we'd maintain the two as two branches in a single repo, to > make it easy to copy bug fixes between them, though I'm not sure Quicklisp > can deal with that situation easily -- I'll ask Zach. > > What do you think? > > -- Scott > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/weblocks/-/GhYR3vRFFf4J. 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/weblocks?hl=en.
