On cliki

[PB]

Brian Rice wrote:

> Hi,

Hi Brian.

>
> Yes, it's quite annoying. Would you like to fix it? Someone needs to 
> step up, or convert the wiki to something a better tool can use. Ask 
> bespin administrators for tunes group access to work on this, or check 
> out cliki cvs sources, from telent.net I believe, independently to 
> investigate the issue.

I will try, but I can't promise I will. You know, work work work work :)

>
> I'm in the middle of the Smalltalk Solutions conference at the moment 
> working hard on Slate, so I can't step in; and I don't have much time 
> in general with a day job. Other team members need to step up and ask 
> for access to fix these things. CLiki is a great tool, but the author 
> is about as loaded as I am with a day-job and so forth.

Glad to hear that Slate is progressing! Er... I should have read the 
Slate site.

>
> Reverting to the older version will negate other fixes and features 
> (like versioning), and not leave us in a good state.

I acknowledge the need of versioning the TUNES cliki, but in the 
meantime versioning can be replaced by plain old automated backup, 
unless there are issues I am not aware of. On the other hand, there are 
two things that - I believe - are vital for cliki: data consistency and 
usability. Perhaps everyone agrees that the latter has been worsened. 
For the former, if reverting (or upgrading) risks to hinder data 
consistency, it should not be done. Again, there may be issues I am not 
aware of, so I don't have an opinion on what it's better to do. Surely, 
data consistency has priority on usability.

Bye
Pietro