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

[Jesse Andrews]

good idea...

it is still being hacked on, Britt and myself are slowly catching up
with our todo list from our jobs.  We are planing on getting to coding
on personal stuff (and US.O is at the top of the list) by this
weekend!

While converting a 200K line jakarta app to Rails is fun, it does cut
down on your personal time.  Although it is nice to take a 300 line
java file and replace it with one line of ruby using activerecord :)

Jesse

On 10/17/05, Christopher Lam <christopher.lck at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is anyone still hacking on userscripts.org <http://userscripts.org>?
>
> I would love to edit my scripts in place, i.e. textbox instead of fumbling
> about with "Upload". Personally this would save me from the following:
> Edit script.user.js > Hack, hack, hack > (works!) > Upload > Locate
> script.user.js deep in FF structure > upload
> to...
> Edit script.user.js > Hack hack hack (works!) > SelectAll,Copy > Edit in
> userscripts.org <http://userscripts.org> > Submit
>
> On 04/08/05, Jesse Andrews <anotherjesse at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The related scripts is definitely a possiblity. It would tie in good
> > with a recommendation system on the site:
> >
> > I recommend "..." instead
> > I recommend "..." as well as.
> >
> > Also we can give authors a way to add "parents", whose javascript DNA
> > contributed to the creation of this script.
> >
> > -----
> >
> > But to keep things simple it seems like while the script is mostly the
> > same as the parent script, it should be accessible through the parent
> > script.
> >
> > There probably should be some way of determining which version of the
> > script is more used by the community, as if there are 5 different
> > versions of the script it may be hard to determine which version you
> > should use. Although perhaps having users comment on revisions, and
> > have the comments visible from all revisions, but having a link to the
> > given revision from the comment.
> >
> >
> > Jesse
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/3/05, Aaron Boodman <zboogs at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Any major changes
> > > > should be submitted as a patch to the original developer, just like
> > > > any other oss project.
> > >
> > > I disagree. People should feel free to branch a project whenever they
> > > want, independent of the original developer's review or time.
> > >
> > > I see the problem with branching vs. new script. Maybe just simplify
> > > by making them be equivalent and just a UI flourish to make it easy.
> > > Like:
> > >
> > > Script Name: Printer-friendly NY Times pages
> > >
> > > Related scripts:
> > > * Friend of printer-friendly
> > > * CNN printer-friendly
> > > * ...etc...
> > >
> > > [ Branch this script ]
> > >
> > > Where related scripts just go to a new top-level script and branching
> > > just creates a new script templated of this revision of this one.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Greasemonkey mailing list
> > > Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> > > http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Greasemonkey mailing list
> > Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> > http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Greasemonkey mailing list
> Greasemonkey at mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/greasemonkey
>
>