# implementation history prior to beta and github
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/implementation-history-prior-to-beta-and-github/2896
**Category:** Site feedback
**Created:** [February 12, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implementation-history-prior-to-beta-and-github/2896 "2013-02-12T13:49:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 2
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@greenreign](https://meta.discourse.org/u/greenreign)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2013, 1:49pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implementation-history-prior-to-beta-and-github/2896/1 "2013-02-12T13:49:56Z")
I’d love a description of how codebases like this evolve. Not how the idea or project was hatched but the actual structure of the team, code, environment.
Could you provide a summary of discourse’s development history? Methodology, if any? Commit history or trends prior to the 2 weeks it appears to have been on github? Continuous integration/deployment? How did the codebase and development environment evolve?
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/implementation-history-prior-to-beta-and-github/2896/2 "2013-02-13T00:55:50Z")
To be honest, we’re kind of busy right now.. I’m not sure such a history would be all that interesting. I am much, _much_ more interested in the history from the time the project went public!
The general strategy is, build the prototype.. post on it.. see how it feels.. fix the broken and incomplete bits… add polish.. repeat forever.
For fun, here’s an early screenshot of Discourse
