On 7/24/13, Ryan Ollos <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Joachim Dreimann <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 22 July 2013 15:32, Steve Gaul <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi, I am new to this list, so forgive me if this questions has been
>> > asked
>> > before…
>> >
>> > Is there a list of plugins that work with/are available for the latest
>> > released (0.6.) version of Bloodhound?
>> >
>> > Or will the existing trace plugins be able to be used with bloodhound.
>> >
>> > Please advise, thanks.
>> > SEG
>> >
>>
>> I'm not aware of a full list as such.. Ryan, what do you think the
>> chances
>> are of including Bloodhound versions in the compatibility list on
>> Trac-Hacks?
>> http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/HackIndex
>
> I don't think that will be a problem; either applying
> "bloodhound-<version>" tags, or just a "bloodhound" tag. In fact, we have
> one plugin tagged so far thanks to the work of Olemis:
> http://trac-hacks.org/tags/bloodhound
>
<joke>people know when they are growing too old after forgetting these
kinds of things :)</joke>
IMHO bloodhound-<major>.<minor> would be nice to have.
@rjollos : What about adding such tags in trachacks:wiki:HackIndex
versions selector ?
{{{
Show hacks for releases:0.8 0.9 0.10 0.11 0.12 1.0 anyrelease
}}}
> In addition to MultiProduct considerations, we'll likely find that most
> plugins don't look very nice, even if they install and function correctly,
> since the Trac CSS has been removed and much of the Bloodhound CSS depends
> on having specific classes and markup in the templates. I don't expect this
> to be news to the Bloodhound devs, but just wanted to mention it again for
> the benefit of Steve and other users.
>
Right ! Those are the two major differences wrt compatibility . That
means e.g. that 90% of plugins relying upon template filtering hacks
might not work
> Steve, it would be great if you let us know how specific plugin worked out
> for you.
>
... or tag it directly on trac-hacks
--
Regards,
Olemis.
