Re: checklink: ideas for next version

Ville Skyttä wrote:

> Anyway, I'm cutting a lot of your plan here with just saying it sounds fine to 
> me.  However, I think the overdue version 4.4 should really be released 
> before going wild with implementing the new plans in CVS (or alternatively, 
> do the new work on a branch).

Is there a roadmap for the link checker around anywhere? I have been
know to get interested enough in proposed features in software to go
ahead and implement them.

> Regarding link checker future, I'd personally actually prefer 
> redesigning/rewriting much of the current code rather than continuing too 
> long with the current implementation.  The script is quite a monster already 
> and requires quite intimate knowledge to maintain/contribute to - cleaner 
> codebase and proper separation of concerns would make many things much easier 
> and could attract more contributors.  And perhaps while at it, consider 
> changing the implementation to e.g. Java or Python.

I'm still a big fan of Perl, and would be more likely to contribute if
it stayed in that language (and refactoring it in Perl would be less
work then porting it to a different language entirely anyway).

I would quite like to see it more to a different version control system
though. I've never really gotten along with CVS. My recent projects have
been using Git, which I've quickly grown very fond of.

One of the advantages is that anybody can grab a copy of the repository
and start making changes to it, with version control, without needing
commit rights to check it in (or go to effort creating a mirror repository).

Perl has just moved to using Git:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/12/prweb1783874.htm


-- 
David Dorward                               <http://dorward.me.uk/>

Received on Thursday, 1 January 2009 22:06:22 UTC