If I were to develop a new application in CI, would I use the CI 2 from bitbucket or would I wait for the CI Community Branch to kick in?
I can wait for a couple of months since I would be creating an app for myself. The news states that the CI Community Branch would be rolled out in Q1 2011…
i am using the latest branch version since a week in one of my projects and it seems pretty stable. Some bugs from 1.7.2 has been fixed in 2.0.0 already and it seems to runinng faster.
The CI 2 from BitBucket is the only openly available code at the moment. I imaging the Community Branch will just be a branch on BitBucket (or elsewhere) and won’t be introducing any massive game changers.
Think of it like Fedora / Red Hat. The two are pretty much the same, things just get a real test-by-fire in Fedora before getting picked or ignored for Red Hat.
Will it be worth to wait for CI Community Branch (CI CB) or not?
Phil, I know you were a little bit disappointed because development on CI 2.0 was too slow and community fixes (from yourself, for example) were not or very very very slow incorperated to the CI 2.0 branch.
That’s why I’m wondering if the CI CB will be - for lack of a better word - better than CI 2.0.
it’s not worth waiting no, especially when you can download CI 2.0 right now. The branch will be out next year, so why wait?
Use CI 2.0 and upgrade to the community branch when it comes out, if/when you decide it is better than CI 2.0. The two will most likely be very similar, with the community branch containing a few extra bits here and there. Of course, we don’t know yet but that’s the usual case.
Mercurial works as well as Git. And so far, I haven’t seen any problems with Bitbucket. And I can’t say that of Github…
More to do with the community than the functionality. After all SVN does the trick…
I have seldom (actually I can’t think of a single instance) got CI code (libraries, helpers etc) from BitBucket but I frequently do from Github. Github is the the go to location for various highly active CI developers. So it seems to make sense to host the CodeIgniter repository there as well.
While SVN “does the trick”, DVCS is vastly superior, and to that end, either Git or Mercurial are great choices. There were numerous reasons that we chose Hg over Git, but just to share with respect to GitHub and BitBucket, GitHub’s Issue system was not able to be indexed by search engines at the time we moved away from SVN (did they ever get that fixed?), and while that was not the determining factor, that definitely impacted our decision. As did their speed and quality of response to our sales and technical questions, which granted, individual users will not often encounter, but businesses like ours certainly do.
As did their speed and quality of response to our sales and technical questions, which granted, individual users will not often encounter, but businesses like ours certainly do.
Perhaps this is an example of the different set of criteria that the Community branch will use.
Has a name been given to the ‘core’ i.e. the existing/current codebase? We need a word to refer to it…
With all the NDA talk, and needing to explain what the NDA is for, this looks like to me that CI 2.0 will eventually have the “do whatever you want” license removed from it, in my opinion.
What happened to the original CI ideals and fundamentals? We waited for almost a year for these PR gaffe announcements to start showing up.
