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

[Jeremy Dunck]

On 8/3/05, Britt Selvitelle <anotherbritt at gmail.com> wrote:
> I had envisioned it being kept pretty simple (I think it was
> originally described this way), allowing revisions in a linear
> fashion, fixing small bugs and fixes for whem GM makes api changes.

>From Aaron's email:
"Another option might be [post branch]."



> > Storing everything -but- the source code in the DB would allow for
> > this, wouldn't it?
> 
> Why store the source in svn when we are already storing per-revision
> records in the database?

Because the DB doesn't handle branches well?  I'm not really pushing
for this, I'm just saying that if we are going to add
source-control-like features, it may make sense to use a source
control engine.  But see below...
 
> > Still, you have the issue of queryable branches.  I want to see the
> > history of script X.  How do I do that?
> 
> Not considering branch trees, all the scripts would be stored linearly
> in a table. We can consider branches housed under a single script's
> page, but I really think this is a bad idea. If a branch is different
> enough to be considered a "branch", the original script's description,
> author, etc probably aren't applicable, and the branch itself really
> deserves it's own page and record in the database.

I agree that branches need to be presented differently, and that
making them first class scripts is probably the easiest way to get
there.  However, I'd still like to see where a script branched from,
and any known branches from the current script.