updated branch; this is ready for review for inclusion in IkIWiki

[git.ikiwiki.info.git] / doc / forum / ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn b/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn
index 85a39e107cc5ec506998b6f73223f9eaa4b9f54e..9920e34bbca55d3df6bf334cc341e03e41060b2a 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn
+++ b/doc/forum/ever-growing_list_of_pages.mdwn
@@ -5,10 +5,6 @@ they're still present in the repository.
 Shouldn't there be some clean-up at some point for those that have been
 resolved?  Or should all of them be kept online forever?
 
 Shouldn't there be some clean-up at some point for those that have been
 resolved?  Or should all of them be kept online forever?
 

-Likewise, for example in [[forum/ikiwiki__39__s_notion_of_time]], should one
-remove the text about the implementation bug that has been fixed, or should it
-stay there, for reference?
-

 --[[tschwinge]]
 
 > To answer a question with a question, what harm does having the done bugs
 --[[tschwinge]]
 
 > To answer a question with a question, what harm does having the done bugs


@@ -17,3 +13,17 @@ stay there, for reference?
 > reached a point now? One advantage of having them around is that people
 > running older versions of the Ikiwiki software may find the page explaining
 > that the bug is fixed if they perform a search. -- [[Jon]]
 > reached a point now? One advantage of having them around is that people
 > running older versions of the Ikiwiki software may find the page explaining
 > that the bug is fixed if they perform a search. -- [[Jon]]

+
+> I like to keep old bugs around. --[[Joey]]
+
+So, I guess it depends on whether you want to represent the development of the
+software (meaning: which bugs are open, which are fixed) *(a)* in a snapshot of
+the repository (a checkout; that is, what you see rendered on
+<http://ikiwiki.info/>), or *(b)* if that information is to be contained in the
+backing repository's revision history only.  Both approaches are valid.  For
+people used to using Git for accessing a project's history, *(b)* is what
+they're used to, but for those poor souls ;-) that only use a web browser to
+access this database, *(a)* is the more useful approach indeed.  For me, using
+Git, it is a bit of a hindrance, as, when doing a full-text search for a
+keyword on a checkout, I'd frequently hit pages that reported a bug, but are
+tagged `done` by now.  --[[tschwinge]]