Excerpts from Eric Kow's message of Wed Nov 04 18:38:33 +0100 2009: > Thanks for the clarification > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 18:32:32 +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > I think there two kind of plugins: > > > > * Mercurial ones are plugins in traditional way, they are just modules (not > > commands), reusing the core library and loaded by the main system. > > > > * Git ones are more UNIXy, first you have separated commands git-foo, they > > are > > maybe hidden in some libexec directory, they may reuse the core library > > (or > > not), and they are spawned by the main command. > > > > IMHO real plugins tends to turn your project into something much more > > complex > > than needed. I would prefer having, a core library, a set of commands, and a > > main command to polish up. > > I think I was thinking more of the git-style plugins:
Great, then. > http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1504 > > I'll note also that I'm not terribly attached to the idea of darcs > plugins. I just thought it could relieve some pressure to implement new > functionality, and also in some sense extend the Darcs hacker community > beyond the Haskell-friendly world. But I imagine it also leads to some > interesting new problems that we may not be prepared to solve. What new problems do you have in mind? I don't see plugins causing troubles, providing an accessible core library on the other end will leads to interesting problems, but this is not really caused by plugins. -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
