On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Michael Torrie<[email protected]> wrote: > Xan Lopez wrote: >> Open bugs with the extensions and me or someone else will surely port >> those, they sound pretty simple. > > Good to know. These are extensions I wrote myself, though. Do the > epiphany developers really want to be in the business of custom-coding > end users' plugins?
Well, if the extensions are simple (as these sound to be), potentially useful to some people, you are not interested in porting them and I can make you happier and reduce the annoyance of dropping Python by porting them, I'll try to do it. Of course my time is limited and I have a million things to do, so don't expect miracles :) It's also good in general to have simple, contained problems to give to newcomers, so worst case I con point someone to your code next time they ask me what simple tasks they can try to help with. Finally, unless the extension is totally ridiculous I think it's good to have them upstream generally, that way you can point people to a central location to get them. > On the other hand, all my plugins do is implement behavior that galeon > had that I can't live without. That might be something other users are > interested in. Maybe a feature request should be opened to get these > optional behaviors added to epiphany. > > In any event I will do nothing about this until the stock rpm of > epiphany in my distro (currently Fedora 11) has dropped python support. > _______________________________________________ > epiphany-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list > _______________________________________________ epiphany-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany-list
