On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:09 AM, o_z <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, I've compared original repository and yours. There are much > backwards-compatible changes which IMHO could be easily merged.
It's true. I've only submitted pull requests for a few things I saw as important bug fixes, but most of the other things I've done are extensions that shouldn't interfere with existing apps. > 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. I'm sure some of them require some discussion. Which ones do you have questions about? > 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). > Actually, the SSL code is backward compatible -- it has no effect unless you specify an SSL acceptor when starting Weblocks. > 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. > Sure, I know how to use my own version of Weblocks locally. It's only publishing it through Quicklisp that would require Zach to do something. > As for quicklisp name, "weblocks 2" is confusing name, slburson-weblocks > or slb-weblocks or similar would be great. > Well, that depends. If we agree that the new version is what we want most people to be using in the future, then not only is "Weblocks 2" not confusing, it expresses that intention perfectly. If we think it will forever remain a fork that only some people will use, then it would be better to name it something else, as you suggest. > 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. > Before I do that, I think it would make more sense for me to go through my changes, merging any that are backward-compatible and seem uncontroversial into the main Weblocks repo, and writing up the rest for discussion on this list. Once we've gone over them, we'll have a better sense of whether we're looking at the future of Weblocks or a permanent fork. -- Scott > 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<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. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" 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/weblocks?hl=en.
