2007/7/3, Bob McConnell <rvm@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2007/7/3, Bob McConnell <rvm@xxxxxxxxx >: > > > But then what happens when a customer insists you back port a bug fix > > from 1.5 to 1.2 that requires a change in the 1.2 version of that > > document? You won't be able to branch and fix the 1.2 version because it > > is frozen. > > > > I think you really need to look into a true RCS system, like Perforce or > > DARCS for this. Checking in the current content of the wiki would > > automatically generate the diffs and you gain the full use of the other > > features. Or convert it to PDF before checking it into the RCS. > > > From: YC Chan > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:17 AM > To: dokuwiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [dokuwiki] Re: Best practices of multiple documentation releases > > By 'frozen' I mean it was decided at that moment, contractually signed and > the software released. It becomes 'history'. Following v 1.5 if the customer > wants to change v 1.2, well no problem, but the next version becomes 1.6. > There is no branching. Time is an endless river ... > > DB users always have a way to purge their db tables. 'Infinite' revision > control sounds beautiful but I'm suggesting that we forget some details > and offer Wiki users a way to purge the pages from time to time. The version > tag is one way to do it, if we foresee enough 'fool' guards. > > If you make a copy of the namespace/or all the pages, you still foresake > the revisions. And you can't automatically compare your current release > with the official version tagged 1.X, and have to print it out and checking > line by line to find out the changes since a given official version. (This would be much easier if you would turn off HTML in your mail agent and post your responses at the bottom where they belong.) First, the diffs are automatically regenerated by any decent RCS when you check in a revised file. Most of them also have tools to examine those diffs which highlight the changes so they are easy to spot. It shouldn't matter that you dropped all of the intermediate details. If it does, maybe some of those details should not have been deleted. I also believe 1.2.1 can not become 1.6 in this case. Because then adding a feature to 1.5 becomes 1.7, and you now have seriously confused two history threads. The diff between 1.5 and 1.6 backs out all of the changes between 1.2 and 1.5, then the diff between 1.6 and 1.7 puts them all back in with the new additions. This is what we are dealing with in our conversion. Perforce won't import the branches from PVCS. The result is likely to be a nightmare for several years. You don't want to go down that road. Bob McConnell -- DokuWiki mailing list - more info at http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:mailinglist
Sorry, I have no background in PVCS, Perforce etc. I can't discuss their functionality. I guess that they are capable of following multiple threads, which Chris suggested dropping out earlier in the thread. Is there a Open Source RCS that can be integrated into DokuWiki ? Or how much of a development effort does a 'decent' RCS takes ? (And any volunteers?) IMHO, no Wiki is expected to be a full fledged Code Version Control System. Its intended users are simple people who wouldn't compare it with Perforce, etc.