On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Peter Koželj <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] > > I will look into both to get an idea what we want/need here. If it turns > out that BH requires some BH multiproduct specific changes to be useful to > us, do we have any idea how plugin author would see such a request? We discussed this question directly, but I thought I should put a reply on the list as well. I agree with what Olemis said, that in general I think plugin authors won't be so open to directly supporting Bloodhound until it gains some significant traction, but that is just a feeling. That is probably how I'd feel if I wasn't involved with Bloodhound. AgiloTrac provides a somewhat similar situation in that there are bug reports all over trac-hacks that are specific to Agilo (a lot of jQuery / jQuery UI conflicts, if I remember correctly). I've tried to help people with these issues for plugins that I maintain, and I've noticed other developers with the same attitude. However, I haven't used Agilo, haven't found the time to get more familiar with it and setup a dev environment, and I'm generally not willing to apply patches that I haven't tested myself, so the problems seemed to fall by the wayside. I've found the AccountManagerPlugin author very good to work with, and I think he'd be supportive if we needed to additional API functionality exposed for Bloodhound, but I can't imagine many plugin authors wanting to include and support code that is Bloodhound-specific. So I'm taking the approach to wait and see what we need, and then we can drill down to the specifics of whether we will have to fork the plugin at some point, and how all of that will play out.
