Hi Tristan
Good/Bad/Ugly sounds like a good idea for managing large sets of things,
and could apply very well to the plugins. When we've got a large group
of extensions/wrapper-scripts, it could make sense for them as well.
But at the moment, I think we've only got about 5 extensions? And that's
counting the ones from the contrib directory. So I'd rather hold off on
subdividing them and categorizing them for now. I'd rather make that
decision when we have more extensions, and a better idea how we feel
about them.
At this stage, I think we can easily get by if we just treat the
extensions as one big group of individial entities, and decide on a
case-by-case basis how much maintenance (if any) we want to commit to doing.
Douglas
On 18/09/2020 05:33, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
We've had many plugin discussions before, and one popular idea which
might satisfy you would be to have a "plugins-good" / "plugins-bad"
category system (like gstreamer has the good/bad/ugly packages).
This would allow the core maintainers to make additional commitments to
reviewing and maintaining a limited set of additional plugins (our
little "cathedral"), while still having a larger ecosystem where the
core maintainers do not make such commitments (our "bazaar").
If we had such a separation, it would be good to consider additional
pedantic criteria for "good" plugins, like:
- cache key stability
- YAML API stability
- ...
If we had such a separation, we might decide also to not make any `pip`
packages or `pypi` releases of plugins outside of the "good" category
(we would still want to make tarball releases for both categories of
plugin package though, so any project can still access them with the
"junction" plugin origin).
Again, I need to emphasize that I don't feel strongly about the good /
bad separation idea, I'm only throwing stuff at the wall to see what
sticks :)
Cheers,
-Tristan
