is a separate repo useful?

[jsms90]

@bradreeder I'm slowly wondering whether this separation is helpful? Wouldn't it be better to have everything linkable within the same repo?

This repo doesn't mean much without master-reference, right? And the master-reference vision doesn't mean much without these patterns.

I'm thinking we should just have a meta label for issues like #9 and have them live in master-reference.

[bradreeder]

@jsms90 See #1 . I made this separate for now because it's an un-trialled experimental methodology that we don't have an applicable format for yet. master-reference implies it's official.

My long-term idea was that this could become a part of the master-reference at a time the methodology had been developed to a point that others could use it, and an informed consensus-decision could be reached.

I'm concerned if we merge this into master-reference now before it's ready that a lot of creative freedom & space to develop this methodology will be lost and that it will cause unnecessary confusion.

[jsms90]

I kind of agree with what you're saying. But I think that having these patterns stored in a separate repo (especially in issues) is only going to be harder to merge in down the line?

Thoughts @eliascodes?

[jsms90]

@bradreeder Even if having something in the master-reference implies that it's "official", I don't think that means it's unchangeable. This, like everything else, can be an iterative process. We will only learn whether it works on not in the implementation, whether that is in the a-pattern-language repo, or in master-reference.

The problem is that the master-reference can't wait for the perfect methodology to be formed first. We need to begin implementing something for proposing experiments now. This format of pointing out a problem and essentially proposing an experiment (solution, hypothesis).