TiddlyWiki version 2.6.3 released
Martin Budden
This is a minor upgrade, the main changes are a number of bug fixes
and also so minor refactoring of the code. See
https://github.com/TiddlyWiki/tiddlywiki/issues?sort=created&direction=desc&state=closed
for a list of issues addressed in this release.
Any problems, please report them in this thread, or alternatively
raise an issue on github.
Martin
Mark
with the new core code". Any ideas?
Thanks
Mark
Paulo Soares
--
Paulo Soares
rakugo
https://github.com/TiddlyWiki/tiddlywiki/issues/38
I don't think we have quite worked out what has changed yet.
In the meantime the workaround is to use another browser to do the
upgrade.
Best wishes
Jon
Paulo Soares
them refused to update an empty TW. Should I try another OS also?
On a side note, I guess this finally answers a question that has been
bothering me for some time now: TW is dead! It has been a pleasant
ride but now it's over. Thank you Jeremy, Eric and all the wonderful
people who contributed to this rather unique piece of software. Moving
on...
Best regards,
--
Paulo Soares
Mark
work in FF, but does work in IE.
Mark
AlanBCohen
Linux and Android boxes, so an 'IE' fix is useless.
Måns
> On a side note, I guess this finally answers a question that has been
> bothering me for some time now: TW is dead! It has been a pleasant
> ride but now it's over.
You haven't noticed or tried TiddlySpace, where most of the
development has taken place recently??
I think it's a very worrying and thoughtprovoking conclusion from a
great contributor who hasn't been very active for the past two or
three years... (exept for supporting your own plugins - thank you
very much btw!!)
If you want to work with TW as usual doing upgrades and uploads from a
local file - you simply revert back to FF ver 4 - this works fine in
Linux and Windows...
There are portable versions for both platforms if you prefer to have
FF v 5 as your main browser..
A little worried Måns Mårtensson
rakugo
> Under Linux I tried Firefox, Chromium, Opera and Rekonq and all of
> them refused to update an empty TW. Should I try another OS also?
this is caused by a slightly different bug to the Firefox import one.
Apologies for not looking into this more and making assumptions.
I've raised a new issue:
https://github.com/TiddlyWiki/tiddlywiki/issues/47
with a suggested workaround.
Try adding:
config.macros.upgrade.source= "http://apps.tiddlyspace.com/
tiddlywiki263";
to a plugin and then trying the upgrade process. It should work. I
just tried on Chrome on Mac... I don't have issue to a Linux box at
the moment so was unable to check it thus would appreciate any
feedback.
> On a side note, I guess this finally answers a question that has been
> bothering me for some time now: TW is dead! It has been a pleasant
> ride but now it's over. Thank you Jeremy, Eric and all the wonderful
> people who contributed to this rather unique piece of software. Moving
> on...
to this statement!
Best wishes
Jon
PMario
> On a side note, I guess this finally answers a question that has been
This seems to be rather a statement than a question :)
> ... It has been a pleasant
> people who contributed to this rather unique piece of software. Moving
> on...
TiddlySpot IMO just needs a different "standard" upload mechanism to
work again.
I know, that these are web based. But instead of whining that our
loved file TWs don't work at the moment, like we are used to it, IMO
there should be input, and ideas, how to make it work again.
-m
[1] http://tiddlyspace.com
[2] http://hoster.peermore.com/
soulman
with the message
"error with the new source code".
Tryed out the update with IE8. It seemed to be working but all my ä, ö
and ü signs were broken.
After that I had the idea to update it with an old FFportable version
(2.0) and suprise, surprise
the update works, my signs are ok and all plugins are properly working
at the moment.
Hope this will help a little bit.
Martin Budden
your statement that TW is dead without explanation is rather
provocative. My view is that it is still very useful in its niche,
although that niche has changed with time and with other developments
on the web (not least TiddlySpace). Perhaps you no longer find it
useful, but that does not mean it is dead.
Martin
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
>
>
Julio
I've also had a bit of problems with FF5 trying to upgrade.
However, as per suggestions on the groups I have a portable version of
FF and all seems fine.
I will be content for now until the issue gets resolved.
> ... It has been a pleasant
> ride but now it's over. Thank you Jeremy, Eric and all the wonderful
> people who contributed to this rather unique piece of software. Moving
> on...
why.
Maybe it can better help us in our tw quest...
Sometimes as humans we tend to become very disenchanted
when our creativity or the ability to do so dwindles.
I'm not saying that this is the case, however.
It is best to step back and reassess the situation.
Even walk away from it all together for a bit
, but with intentions of coming back and exploring further.
I don't post much, but I'll say this, ever since I started using or
rather fiddling around with
TW as work and life do not permit me to make a full commitment to it,
it
has been a frustratingly enjoyable ride this has been it.
Sometimes I feel like yanking my hairs out as the saying goes, but I
love it.
TW is my primary go to note taking application.
Even at work I use it as my primary source of personal info.
Then again, I am not a creator or innovator...more of a cut-n-paste
kinda dude.
If it wasn't for all of you and your informative threads
then I would definitely have thrown the towel aeons ago, so to speak.
To all of you in Tiddlyverse, keep up the good work and best regards!
Julio
AlanBCohen
I tried your suggestion to use an earlier version of Firefox. I
downloaded the PortableApps.com version of Firefox36 and loaded it
using wine (this is on Linux). BTW, this version of Firefox has
worked before on this Linux distro installation.
I was able to upgrade a copy of my main TW from 2.6.2 to 2.6.3 and
save it. However, when I tried to open it using my main version of
Firefox5, it gave me:
ReferenceError: wikifyPlain is not defined.
I wouldn't mind using an older version to perform an upgrade, but not
being able to use my regular browser on a daily basis would be
difficult.
Måns
> I was able to upgrade a copy of my main TW from 2.6.2 to 2.6.3 and
> save it. However, when I tried to open it using my main version of
> Firefox5, it gave me:
> ReferenceError: wikifyPlain is not defined.
>
Have you checked and updated your plugins?
I only remember stumbling over the word "wikifyPlain" in conjunction
with singlePageModePlugin.
Try disabling it - and/or check if there's an update..
Cheers Måns Mårtensson
AndrewMc
I am saddened to hear you say this.
Selfishly, perhaps, I wonder who will maintain your lovely MathSVGPlugin?
http://www.math.ist.utl.pt/~psoares/MathSVG.html
Cheers
Andrew Mc
iain
popular browsers then the program is indeed ill if not dead. Is this
problem going to be fixed??
Iain
Tobias Beer
I never really understood the need of a dedicated, internal updgrade
process. Why not just import all tiddlers from an existing tiddlywiki
into a plain TiddlyWiki of the new version? If there are plugin
errors, you will sure see them.
Also, I don't think it is reasonable to suggest it were a good idea to
upgrade TiddlyWiki's just for the sake of a "because i can", a
statement which surely doesn't apply when it comes to jQuery. In that
regard I wished the single-file paradigm would be dropped already...
or be more of an alternative than a core tenet.
Cheers, Tobias.
rakugo
does not mean the product "doesn't work on popular browsers". As
Tobias points out it is possible to download an empty TiddlyWiki 2.6.3
and import content into there. TiddlyWiki still allows you to save
content to itself which is its core offering! That doesn't appear
broken to me... Saying it is dead is akin to saying Microsoft Windows
is dead because the Windows update feature is not working!
Yes there are problems with the import functions in Firefox 5, but I
believe these can be fixed and they __will___ be fixed!
Remember, only upgrade if there is a reason to - ie. your existing
version is broken or there is a new feature you need!
AlanBCohen, it sounds like one of the plugins you have is incompatible
with the latest version of TiddlyWiki and may require updating.
wikifyPlain has been deprecated, but should still be available to
plugins so shouldn't have broken your TiddlyWiki indicating
something's gone wrong here... I'll look into it and try and get this
fixed! Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers, Jon
Ton van Rooijen
Please, please stop discussing.
Can't you see this whole issue seriously hurts TiddlyWiki, and hurts
the community?
Every day this lasts longer the damage becomes bigger.
So, be a man and acknowledge that this version was released too early
and withdraw it.
AND replace the download-site immediately with v2.6.2 again.
Yes, these are hard words, but i.m.h.o. honestly written in the
interest of TiddyWiki.
I still believe in TW. Best regards,
Ton van Rooijen
Martin Budden
I'm not sure why discussing a problem hurts TW and the community.
Surely it's best to be open with any problems.
I also don't really understand the reasoning behind reverting to
2.6.2. It's not that the upgrade functionality became broken in 2.6.3,
it's that the upgrade functionality that was working in 2.6.2 no
longer works because of increased security in all the major browsers.
People trying to upgrade are running 2.6.2 or an earlier version of
TW. Reverting to 2.6.2 will not fix the upgrade problem.
We have been working on a fix to the upgrade problem and believe we
have a working solution - we currently doing some testing.
One of the things this does highlight is that very little beta testing
goes on in the community (we have thought this for a while). This is
something we need to address. Maybe we could do the odd/even number
thing: odd numbers being development releases. That way active
developers could upgrade to odd numbered releases whereas general
members of the community would only upgrade on even releases. There
are such a large number of browser and plugin combinations out there
that we need community support to ensure releases have no problems.
Martin
chris...@gmail.com
On Aug 10, 5:54 pm, Martin Budden <mjbud...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm pleased to announce the release of version 2.6.3 of TiddlyWiki.
> Any problems, please report them in this thread, or alternatively
> raise an issue on github.
I should release a new version of tiddlywebwiki including this
release, or wait for 2.6.4? As I understand this thread the issue with
upgrades is not related 2.6.3 itself, but instead with modern
browsers, and that is not germane in the tiddlyweb setting. However, I
understand there also may be issues with deprecated functions having
been fully removed rather than simply deprecated. What is the status
of that?
Thanks.
Martin Budden
the issue with deprecated functions is that wikifyPlain() was
accidentally removed rather than just deprecated - this is fixed in
2.6.4.
As for waiting for 2.6.4, there is now a tentative 2.6.4 released (see
tiddlywiki-group-dev) which you can use. The reason that 2.6.4 is not
"fully" announced is that we'd like it to be exercised by development
users before we recommend its use by the wider community. So in short
there is a 2.6.4 which you should use and which we will recommend for
general use once we have exercised it some more. I am suggesting this
approach because the beta release does not get sufficient usage to
give us confidence in the release. The plan is to adopt a similar
approach with the next release.
Martin
chris...@gmail.com
> the issue with deprecated functions is that wikifyPlain() was
> accidentally removed rather than just deprecated - this is fixed in
> 2.6.4.
Okay I'll use that to package up a tiddlywebwiki.
Did you see in another thread[1] where I pointed out that tiddlywiki
HEAD is not passing its tests on safari webkit and google chrome?
LoadingSaving: load (2, 2, 4)
[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywikidev/browse_frm/thread/f92e9a2f7e1a94ff
> As for waiting for 2.6.4, there is now a tentative 2.6.4 released (see
> tiddlywiki-group-dev) which you can use. The reason that 2.6.4 is not
> "fully" announced is that we'd like it to be exercised by development
> users before we recommend its use by the wider community. So in short
> there is a 2.6.4 which you should use and which we will recommend for
> general use once we have exercised it some more. I am suggesting this
> approach because the beta release does not get sufficient usage to
> give us confidence in the release. The plan is to adopt a similar
> approach with the next release.
I'm not sure if I understand the difference between a fully
announced and tentative release. If the file at
http://tiddlywiki.com/empty.html is 2.6.4, then 2.6.4 is the fully
released version, no?
--
Chris Dent http://burningchrome.com/
[...]
Martin Budden
> announced and tentative release.
The difference is that we are not yet recommending that general users
upgrade. Only "developer users" should upgrade. I know that new users
get 2.6.4, but new users tend not to have plugin compatibility
problems etc.
Anyway I'm looking for an improvement on our existing beta process.
The current beta process doesn't work - problems that should have been
found in beta were not found, and indeed I don't recall a problem
being found in any of the beta releases. So any suggestions for
improvement are welcome.
Martin
Eric Weir
On Aug 16, 2011, at 9:55 AM, Julio wrote:
> I also get worried when this thinking surfaces and get curious as to
> why.
> Maybe it can better help us in our tw quest...
>
> Sometimes as humans we tend to become very disenchanted
> when our creativity or the ability to do so dwindles.
> I'm not saying that this is the case, however.
> It is best to step back and reassess the situation.
> Even walk away from it all together for a bit
> , but with intentions of coming back and exploring further.
>
> I don't post much, but I'll say this, ever since I started using or
> rather fiddling around with
> TW as work and life do not permit me to make a full commitment to it,
> it
> has been a frustratingly enjoyable ride this has been it.
> Sometimes I feel like yanking my hairs out as the saying goes, but I
> love it.
> TW is my primary go to note taking application.
> Even at work I use it as my primary source of personal info.
>
> Then again, I am not a creator or innovator...more of a cut-n-paste
> kinda dude.
Late comer to this thread, as I'm a less frequent frequenter of the TW Google group than in the past.
The above is my pretty much my situation. TW is an amazing piece of software. It's versatility and the creativity of its users and developers in creating plugins to take advantage of that versatility is impressive. A few years back, with a lot of help from Morris Gray, I was able to settle on an adaptation of Morris' TW-Treeview that meets most of my needs.
That said, going back to my first encounter with TW, it took me at least a year of occasional fiddling to figure out how I might use it. For a few years I was the beneficiary of generous help from that impressive community in response to my utterly naive questions. Then, in my insensitive persistence in seeking and eventually demanding help with one particular issue, I managed to dry up the well. Though there is a work-around, that issue remains unresolved. The experience has convinced me that to make effective use of TW you have to be or be willing to become a programmer. The issue just mentioned aside, the things that can go wrong and that call for tweaking are endless.
For the regulars here that is not an issue. For me it is. As a result, I've been seeking an alternative. I am beginning to think there isn't one, which speaks to TW's strengths, but makes its shortcomings all the more tragic. There is ferment in the world outside TW these days about tagging. I've been checking out the possibilities on offer. None comes close to the power of TagglyTagging. Again, what a tragedy.
IMHO, the primary shortcoming of TW is the failure to address the needs and capabilities of the ordinary nonprogramming user. This has been known to be a problem for years, yet there has been no effort to address it.
One last word: In one of my now infrequent posts here a while back, when users were struggling with an issue I recall being vaguely similar to the one currently being experienced with the new release, I asked whether anyone had given any thought to creating a browser specifically to run TW.
Another incredibly naive question no doubt, but FWIW, there it is again.
Regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Weir
Decatur, GA USA
eew...@bellsouth.net
whatever
I have a few suggestions.
Instead of having simply empty.html, why not use versions in name,
like empty263.html? That way, you could use "versioning" like File-
Hippo.
For example, on tiddlywiki.com, you could have the normal download
page with the latest final/stable version, but you could also keep a
list of all the older download pages (which would also display a list
of improvements/bug fixes/new functions (maybe on a slider), which I
noticed isn't available on the main page anymore nor apparently
anywhere else in the wiki) linking to older empty*.html files. And you
could have a page for developers where developers could download the
latest development/unstable version. So on the main page, the link
would be to empty262.html and on the developer page, you would have
links to, say, empty263.html and empty264.html and you could specify
the version's status (RC, beta, alpha...). Of course, instead of
version number in the file name itself, you could use subfolders.
In the tiddlywiki file itself, you could then have multiple links,
like "Update to the latest stable version (version number)", "Select
an older stable version" (which would display a list of all the older
versions higher than the one you currently have) and "Developers
only" (where developers could choose unstable versions). That way you
could avoid the confusion over whether to upgrade or not, since the
average user would see the latest stable version by default instead of
like now when the latest version the user sees is 2.6.4, but when in
reality 2.6.2 seems to be the latest stable release, 2.6.3 seems like
a beta and 2.6.4 seems like an alpha. The average user wouldn't see
2.6.3 and 2.6.4 and would get an extra warning if trying to upgrade to
either of those two versions.
Development versions would only be announced on tiddlywikidev and the
stable versions on both.
As for bug reporting, the average user, I think, reports to this group
or maybe tiddlywikidev. I'm not sure how many report to github.
Perhaps adding a shadow tiddler (you could link to it in
GettingStarted) with a bug form and an e-mail link (or something
similar, perhaps just simple instructions on how to report a bug and
where) would help improve things.
Just a thought.
w
Jeremy Ruston
is greatly exaggerated. We'll find a way to work around the
restrictions that browsers have placed on the upgrade/import
functionality.
Osmosoft continues to invest in TiddlyWiki, both directly and as part
of our work in TiddlySpace. TiddlyWiki is in many ways an unusual
project. Relatively few open source projects are so easy for end users
to consume. We do everything we can to keep it functional and relevant
for its faithful audience, whilst trying hard to extend it to new
areas, and broaden its appeal. Open source projects need to keep
moving to survive and be healthy.
Best wishes
Jeremy
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
>
>
--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jer...@osmosoft.com
http://www.tiddlywiki.com
Ton van Rooijen
As far as I know we don't have a process like voting.
But I am very much in favour of, and so would vote for, the suggestion
from "whatever" to have a default download for the latest stable
version, and optional downloads for newer (AND older) versions
addressed by their version number (like e.g. empty243.html) (this
example is not arbitrary: it was and still is a very good version!).
And, as Martin already suggested, I would also vote for a better and
more thorough beta-testing process, with a primary focus on the
standalone self-contained one-file TW (which still is your much valued
core asset!).
Best regards,
Ton van Rooijen
Tony Baldwin
FrD
In order to upgrade from 2.6.2 I understand there is only one
option :
to download a fresh 2.6.4 and then to import the tiddlers.
Since it is not so easy when a TW is tweaked, I was wondering
if somebody could write a plugin with the new upgrade core code
"packed" inside
(and some javascript around !).
Such a macro could be used from inside a 2.6.2 TW to upgrade to a
2.6.4 ?
Or is it too complicated ?
FrD