ziba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I empathize with your concerns and agree that a minimum of documentation is
> important and reasonable. I actually may be the guilty owner of one of the
> very plugins you are talking about.
>
> Do you mean plugins should have easy to localize strings or that the plugin
> developers should initially contribute those strings?
>
> I think that localization is important and it is reasonable to expect that
> plugins are prepared to have their strings localized, but that it is
> unreasonable to expect plugin developers also have the linguistic resources
> to provide translations.
>
> Version support has only just become an issue, because 3.1 is only the
> second release with support for plugins at all. Perhaps we should discuss
> formalizing plugin version support in the plugin api?
>
> Cheers,
> Ziba
>
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:25:47 +0200, Moish <[email protected]> wrote:
>> May I suggest that whoever integrates the plugins into the main branch,
>> will reject any contribution lacking localization and documentation.
>>
>> Hack, some are lacking the author's email, not to mention the
>> version they support !
>>
>> I realize it's only a temp repository, but remember that there is
>> nothing more permanent than that :)
>
1. En_US strings at least.
2. Api are formalized by definition. Version check against api
is critical.
3. Minimal documentation at Admin level is critical.
my 2c
--
Moish
_______________________________________________
List info: http://lists.roundcube.net/dev/
