Rule for upgrading (was: On cliki)

Massimo Dentico m.dentico at
Mon May 10 08:02:16 PDT 2004

"PB" <schizophonic at> wrote:
> [...]
> 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.

I agree completely with you, Pietro. Moreover Cliki was not accessible
for the last 2/3 days and this is not acceptable.

I understand and appreciate the desire to improve CTO, but a not
functioning CTO subtract any value from an upgrade.

I propose to establish a common sense rule: in order to proceed to an
upgrade, the upgrader *must* be able to dedicate his (or of volunteers
previously contacted) time and resources to solve any issue. (I think
Tril is sticking to this rule by day 1 and appropriately).

I never touched Cliki and/or Araneida precisely because I have only
a superficial knowledge of Lisp and no substantial time and will
to invest in Common Lisp.

Besides this, I have many reserves regarding the concept of Wiki
as currently implemented by various softwares, but I will continue
to shut up and not complain because I have no time to develop
my ideas, much less in software.


Massimo Dentico

More information about the TUNES mailing list