At 05:15 PM 2/13/2007 -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
On Feb 13, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 04:33 PM 2/13/2007 -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
So while README's are good,
they aren't nearly enough.
Yes, I'm just saying that this doesn't seem to me to interfere or
compete with Andi's proposal. Andi has uses for the functionality
and the willingness+ability to develop it -- which is not really
the case for what you're proposing, IIUC.
At least having README's and buildable plugins goes a good way
towards having examples that others can tinker with. Improved
ability to tinker (e.g. the menu proposal) is also helpful.
Arguably, good tinkering support is at least as important as
reference documentation and tutorials, which we already have
several of.
Obviously, all documentation can always be improved, but in terms
of rounding out what we have, Andi's proposal does help to fill out
one of the weaker spots.
Andi solicited feedback on his proposal and I gave it. If you guys
want to ignore it, that's your perogative.
Ted, in this thread:
http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/2007-February/006301.html
you +1'd a proposal that differs very little from Andi's as far as I can
tell in practical terms. It would be helpful if you would clarify why your
opinion appears to be so different now. Note that both proposals call for
plugins to be initially inactive, and to have a UI facility for accessing
them. Andi's proposal allows us to offer more features in the plugin
selection UI (i.e., the Cheeseshop one) at comparable cost.
I'm confused by your remarks at this point because I don't understand what
developer documentation has to do with the subject at hand (i.e., what to
do about plugins in the Preview release).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
