Okay, I see -- Bob's SS is basically a playground for the developers.

Still, I think there should be a 3.0-only SuperSwiki around somewhere
that a more general public can play on.  Not everyone who would like to
experiment with computer media, should have to be intimately familiar
with Squeak's current developments.

Furthermore, the versioning problem is real, as long as Squeak keep
changing at its current rate.  Mark Guzdial and I experimented with a
MuSwiki a few years ago (might as well pronounce that "micro-swiki"
nowadays).  There were no safeguards, and it turned out to be very easy
to get messed up by version differences.  Viewing with an earlier
version is often impossible, and even viewing with a later version is at
least confusing, due to all the interactions with SmartRefStream.  We
ended up starting a new muSwiki from whenever an important demo was
coming up....

I'd love if SuperSwiki can avoid this version problem; just pick a
version, and then stick with it for at least a year.  As another poster
put it: think of the sheep!  :)


-Lex



Bob Arning <arning at charm.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 14:54:07 -0500  "Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >Superswiki is version specific.  It's reasonable, with a good bit of
> >work, for people to be able to load 3.0 projects into 3.1.  It's very
> >hard to allow the opposite, however.  For now, people should only browse
> >and especially *post* to a SuperSwiki if they have the same version of
> >Squeak that is on the SuperSwiki (ie, 3.0 for Bob's).
> 
> Lex,
> 
> This would be a reasonable expectation if BSS were commited to stay at 3.0, but that isn't the case. I created BSS to get the ball rolling and allow people to start experimenting with the concept. My expectation is that BSS will stay fairly close to the cutting edge; in fact, there is often content there in advance of the necessary code being in the general release. 
> 
> If there is (and I'm not sure that there is) sufficient interest in a 3.0-only SuperSwiki, one could probably be created, but who would do that and where are open questions. Optionally, folks could start to identify projects that would and would not work with 3.0. One way would be to include "3.0" in one of the searchable fields in the project info if the project will run in 3.0. Users interested in such content could use the search facility to find it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bob