On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Patrick Robertson wrote: > I started a topic a while back on the idea of bringing everything under one > roof, and we came to the idea that trying to build on Alcor's original > (blacktree.com) site would be best.
Do ß54 and ß57 look to blacktree for updates still? I agree that that’s best, if we have a way to push updates to it. > Documentation is definitely a good idea. It needs to be done - especially for > the plugins. As usual there are complications - the plugins are a mess (some > don't build etc), and the source for some is not that of the latest version / > incomplete so we can't just update the text and rebuild. We actually have to > make the plugins again! The documentation and version number exist exclusively in the plug-in’s `Info.plist` do they not? So in theory, we should be able to just open that, update or add text in the `extendedDescription`, then manually tweak the version number to “trick” Quicksilver into thinking it’s worth re-downloading, right? > P.S. I've added a link on the blacktree-alchemy github downloads linking to > the blacktree-elements downloads page - good idea Rob. Thanks! That’ll help. There are a couple of updated plug-ins that are available from forks, but not the original. For example, <http://github.com/neurolepsy/blacktree-elements/downloads>. I don’t know why these guys don’t do pull requests, but anyway, it’s probably worth mentioning. I still think we need something on the FAQ for the Google Group as well, because like I said, a lot of people won’t even know to look to the GitHub repo in the first place. -- Rob McBroom <http://www.skurfer.com/> Don't try to tell me a thing is important to you if the whole of your “support” entails forcing others to spend time and money on it.
