On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:38 AM, Gary Martin <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 18/04/13 13:23, Ryan Ollos wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 4/15/13, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi ! >>>>> >>>>> During the week end I created at Bibucket a fork of Trac XmlRpcPlugin >>>>> to add in there compatibility for Bloodhound . We need that to >>>>> integrate some desktop applications with issue tracker , but there are >>>>> other applications even for our own use . >>>>> >>>>> Great! I think it has enough value that I'd like to see XmlRpcPlugin >>>> eventually become a component of the Bloodhound distribution. >>>> >>>> AFAICR trac-dev was also considering merging that plugin into Trac >>> core once upon a time . >>> >>> Considering some plans and schedule for proposals (i.e. BEPs) this >>> seems to be imminent . Of course , they'd have to be fleshed out and >>> accepted first . Still in the fridge though . >>> >>> After reviewing the state of xmlrpcplugin trunk , now I tried to run >>>>> its test suite . This is what I got >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> So I'm curious : what's the estimated time to bring contrib folder >>>>> back into BH trunk ? <= if such estimation is possible of course . >>>>> >>>> >>>> There is a ticket (1) for adding license headers to the files in >>>> >>> 'contrib' >>> >>>> and some other directories, and I felt that I took ticket as far as I >>>> >>> could >>> >>>> without additional input from a Trac developer. Most everything looked >>>> >>> fine >>> >>>> in terms of being able to put a BSD 3-Clause license on all, or nearly >>>> >>> all, >>> >>>> of the files in 'contrib', but I'm not optimistic that there will be any >>>> status changes of the ticket for a while. >>>> >>>> ... a law of Trac inertia ... they have other important things to do >>> too . For our own sake let's keep them focused on releasing high >>> quality code ;) >>> >>> So if everyone agrees that we have a good case for adding back >>>> >>> 'contrib', I >>> >>>> favor doing that and just removing it from the release tarball, >>>> >>> considering >>> >>>> Brane said this would work okay. >>>> >>>> if this triggers a vote , fwiw +1 >>> >> >> Since there were no further comments to those by Olemis and Brane, I went >> ahead and restored `contrib` in r1469291. >> >> > I should clearly have said something earlier :) > > I think we are fine for the moment with this but if we once again need to > remove this at release time, even if only in the release artefacts, we have > only solved the problem for ourselves. If the ETA for restoring contrib > properly is far away, we might want to find another solution to this so > that users can also run the tests. > I'll try bumping the ticket in Trac by asking if there is anything else I can do to move it along.
