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

Nikolas Coukouma lists at atrus.org
Tue Aug 2 01:46:14 EDT 2005

Alex Thomson wrote:

>On 8/1/05, Mark Rickerby <coretxt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>A distributed version control repository, managed through a web
>>interface, with discussion threading, visual diff capability, and no
>>doubt searchable, and taggable as well.
>>Are you sure that's a rather small nit?
>Actually it's not as big as you might think, using subversion (or some
>substitute) the hardest work is done for you.
>About two months ago, I made a very primitive prototype of what I then
>called a wiki interface to an svn repository (with the intent of using
>it for GM scripts).
>All I can say is that it's quite doable.  For me, it was part of a
>Greasemonkey "IDE".  I wanted to be able to fork an (appropriately
>licensed, of course) script, edit/fix it, make sure it worked, and
>then check it in to the repo - all within the browser.  Installing the
>script and opening it up in an editor works fine but I think this
>better promotes "impulsive" GM scripting.
>Online script editing is easy too,  I wrote a GM script that allowed
>me to load js from a textbox on the editing page and see the results
>on the target page.  It made quick, easy changes just that - quick and
>easy.  Unfortunately though, a textbox isn't emacs, so this technique
>really is limited to simpler edits.
If you want distributed versioning, you don't want Subversion. It is
designed around repository and very brittle if you're trying to share
code between branches. Darcs, Arch, Monotone, and Codeville are the
usual suspects for good distributed versioning. I favor darcs for it's
user friendliness and excellent support for "cherry picking" (choosing
just the patches you want).

On the other hand, simple branches are probably good enough for simple
user scripts.


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list