Timeline for Are there suitable versioning systems for Mathematica notebooks?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 29, 2012 at 21:38 | comment | added | Leonid Shifrin | @NasserM.Abbasi The whole point of separation between interface and implementation, which is central to software development, is exactly to decouple implemetation changes from the use cases. If someone checks out some module and changes implementation, that should not affect the usage (notebook). While if someone changes also the interface, then it is a bad separation of duties: any given interface should IMO be "owned" (in the sense of write access) by only the developer who works on that module. | |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 21:35 | comment | added | Leonid Shifrin | @NasserM.Abbasi That depends on the definition of useful work. If you have a project with more than one developer, it is likely to eventually have a moderately large code base. In such a case, different modules developed by different developers should have clear interfaces separated from their implementations. Those interfaces must be agreed upon, by the developers. In any case, my point is that the notebooks should not contain serious work to be shared. If the interface of a given module changes, it is dev's responsibility to update the notebook, if that is at all necessary. | |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 20:47 | history | edited | Leonid Shifrin | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 1 characters in body |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 18:57 | history | edited | Leonid Shifrin | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 4 characters in body |
| Sep 29, 2012 at 18:48 | history | answered | Leonid Shifrin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |