[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkeyed.com, userscript.org, forums, source code, and the future of our community

Julien Couvreur julien.couvreur at gmail.com
Mon Aug 1 10:16:36 EDT 2005


If there was a rather simple setup that would allow to wikify my
scripts on my own site, I would be glad to install it. I had thought
about it a while back but never got anywhere with the idea.

I imagine it would require to hook up the ".user.js" extension in the
web server to a handler such as PHP, and add a line of PHP at the top
of the user script.

The other question is whether it is possible to show an edit button
directly when rendering the script in the browser, or if the edit
button needs to be on a previous page. Or maybe we could have a GM
menu for "edit this script", that would add a standard querystring
parameter ("action=edit"), when a user script is detected.

Cheers,
Julien


On 8/1/05, Thom Wetzel <thomw at lmnopc.com> wrote:
> That's an awesome idea.  It sounds like you want a wiki for the scripts
> themselves, which makes perfect sense.
> 
> Thom
> 
> 
> 
> Aaron Boodman wrote:
> 
> >:-)
> >
> >Sorry for the dramatic post title. Actually my nit is rather quite small.
> >
> >I was just out taking the new beta Greasemonkey for a spin and I
> >wanted to try out Greasemonkeyed.com. Fully half of the scripts I
> >chose at random were broken, and not because of changes in
> >Greasemonkey. Upon inspection, I found that sites had just changed
> >slightly.
> >
> >Annotate Google [1] seems to have fallen prey to a change to the
> ><title> of Google's search results. I checked to see if GMaps Add
> >Waypoint ever got fixed, and it hadn't. [2]
> >
> >The problem here is that although user scripts are easy to write, they
> >are hard to maintain. Typically the original author has lost interest
> >and doesn't keep them up to date.
> >
> >Here's where it gets interesting though: I am perfectly happy to
> >update somebody else's script when it doesn't work for me. From my
> >point of view, they already did the hard part. It's way easier for me
> >to simply fix their script than start from scratch.
> >
> >But I need somewhere to put this script. And I don't want to upload it
> >to my server, give it a new name, etc. It's just a tiny variation -- a
> >patch -- of the original.
> >
> >So I propose that Greasemonkeyed.com or userscript.org or whatever
> >evolve into this forum-like, flickr groups-like, deviantART-like
> >community. Where people have avatars or signatures and identities that
> >they care about. Where long threads of user scripts develop, each one
> >an optimization, improvement, or fix on the same original idea. Where
> >people can install something and be more reasonably confident that
> >something will work because it was updated an hour ago.
> >
> >So here's a use case:
> >
> >* I'm browsing the scripts and run across one which adds del.icio.us
> >tags to Google search results.
> >* I install the script but see that it doesn't work.
> >* After a quick debug, I find the assumption which was broken and fix it.
> >* I go back to the site, go to the script, and click [post fix].
> >Another option might be [post branch].
> >* I log if not already logged in.
> >* I add a little description of the fix, "Removed title check since it
> >was failing. It wasn't really necessary since it was just preventing
> >the code from running an xpath which would return zero results in
> >cases where the title check failed."
> >* I pasted my new script (or upload from local file) and press [submit].
> >* Since I am a long time user, maybe my update immediately goes into
> >effect. If I were a "new" user, maybe it would have to be reviewed,
> >unless I were fixing my own script.
> >* I go back to the page and see that my revision is posted. I can
> >click [diff] to see a diff against the previous version, and also
> >examine the complete revision history.
> >
> >This effectively makes the pool of scripts the community's property,
> >not the individuals. We all keep them up to date together. It also
> >reduce the amount of garbage in two ways: first, it reduces the number
> >of duplicates which are just bug fixes. Second, it decreases the
> >chance of a broken script staying that way for long.
> >
> >Of course, some people will still feel strongly about their personal
> >work and not want it to become community property this way, even
> >though they would always retain credit for the original
> >implementation. I feel that this minority is small enough that we
> >could just punt on it initially. But there could also be a checkbox on
> >the submit form that allows you to disable fixing and branching.
> >
> >A system like this is also interesting legally. I don't recall
> >anything like this ever existing before. I would imagine the rate of
> >code evolution would be really quite amazing, and that you'd quickly
> >see versions of scripts which look basically nothing like the
> >original. "Credit" would come more for the number of fixes, knowledge,
> >and visibility in the community than that one magic script idea you
> >came up with.
> >
> >What do you guys think?
> >
> >I know it's rude to suggest features for projects which you aren't
> >contributing to. And I really can't say when I'd have time to help on
> >either of these sites. But I do feel strongly that this would really
> >strengthen the community and user scripting in general.
> >
> >Just my random-ass thoughts.
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list