X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/7e987bbfeeea0d93a7d636de5124ecf15ef730be..32def92ffd082185cde169edb1a6d3a2cceae06a:/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 85a39e107..9920e34bb 100644 --- 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? -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 @@ -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]] + +> 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 +), 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]]