On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:10 AM, luke <[email protected]> wrote:
Firstly things first. >> I have to admit that I find it puzzling why we waited around a week from >> when we did started branching the plugins before discussing this. Also, the >> original post[1] was posted about 5 weeks ago. I can't help but to wonder >> why no one opposed this at that time? > For this, I apologise. Although i've been hanging out in irc for a > while, i haven't really been following the mailing list, as i should. > I only found out about the change when JibbyBot started posting > changesets. Once again, I apologise. No need, luke. In fact, thanks for bringing the topic up for discussion. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Michael C. Harris < [email protected]> wrote: > > 2009/6/29 luke <[email protected]>: > > Owen wrote: > >> Apart from that one change - letting trunk stay and be active - I think > >> we should stick with the plan as described, and I will explain not only > >> how it will benefit you, but also how another large project with a huge > >> contributor base does nearly the exact same thing to great effect. > > To summarise, I think this is where we stand in regard to plugins: > (and please point out here if I've missed anything or I'm wrong) > > [snip all the summary] > This all sounds good to me at least. Merging is not going to be easy for people with few or no svn flying hours. But as you said, plugins are normally small and the changes made are often straight forward. > -- > Michael C. Harris, School of CS&IT, RMIT University > http://twofishcreative.com/michael/blog > IRC: michaeltwofish #habari > > > > -- Ali B. / dmondark http://awhitebox.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
