Change state to pushstate

Question

Change state to pushstate

Closed this issue 5 years ago · 6 comments

See: https://push-language.hampshire.edu/t/puj-implementation-discussion/1432?u=thelmuth

Answer 1 · 2019-07-06T17:18:53.000Z

I will take care of this shortly.

Answer 2 · 2019-07-07T20:50:20.000Z

That link is not publicly available, and I don't see how I can create an account on the Push language discourse site, which is unfortunate. I completely understand if you want to keep some discussion private, and continue using that tool, which looks like it has a long history! As someone's who's trying to follow this repo, I'd appreciate if you could move some discussions to gitter or at least copy the body text over? I want to contribute some code or docs to this project, but that's difficult if I can't read the github issues.

Answer 3 · 2019-07-08T18:47:15.000Z

@julian-zucker makes a good point. Our discourse conversations are long, scattered, and usually half-thought through. We should probably be at least writing a TL;DR for each Github issue/PR that stems from a conversation over there. For the sanity of those inside and outside the lab 😆

Here is the summary of the thread which inspired this issue:

“state” is being used in at least 2 different contexts here, for the namespace of Push states and the push state itself. As far as I know, Clojure will know which one you mean in the right places, but this is dangerous reuse. We have been burned before by using “state” to mean different things.

At minimum, let's change the namespace to puj.push.pushstate, as well as the require to pushstate.

Answer 4 · 2019-07-08T22:03:35.000Z

Agreed. Assuming that we do want external contributors, which I hadn't really thought about previously, then it does make sense to have Puj-specific discussions on github.

Answer 5 · 2019-07-10T01:39:45.000Z

If we have a public open source repository it will kind of imply the existence of external contributors (opening issues, starting pull requests, and forking) unless we put in work discourage that stuff. I wouldn't recommend the closed off approach, but some projects succeed under that model (such as the Clojure language 😞 )

I wouldn't expect us to have external collaborators/maintainers (making commits, merging pull requests, cutting releases). Basically the difference is the authority to actualize code changes.

Answer 6 · 2019-07-10T17:42:01.000Z

I'm happy to have external contributors. That said, I'm sure some of the discussion would happen on the Push Discourse, since that's the best place to talk about Push. I think we should do our best to make public-facing things like issues clear without being in on the Discourse discussions.