Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > What other plug-in projects are you aware of that check out as > "stable"? If there are any, it won't be possible to have them > installed along with Haml at the same time. I only have a couple of > plug-ins installed myself, and they install as "rspec" and > "rspec_on_rails" respectively. > Most Rails plugins are specifically/only available for Rails, and aren't large enough to warrant branching/tagging. Thus, they design their repository structure around Rails. Not so for Haml. > I found an older article <http://unspace.ca/discover/haml/> that seems > to suggest that it *used* to work that way, but I tried it out and it > doesn't work any more, at least as of Rails 1.2.3. > Unfortunately, that syntax never worked. It was a weird amalgamation of "svn co" and "script/plugin" syntax. > If you're worried about breakage then you could hold off until 2.0 > before making the change. Or you could just provide clear upgrade > instructions with the version that makes the switch. > > In any case if you change from > > haml/tags/stable > > to: > > haml/branches/stable/haml > > There won't be any breakage as such, merely that people doing an "svn > up" won't get the new version unless you keep the old URL synchronized > with it as well (which could easily be done but I think that just > documenting the upgrade procedure is a better option). > There are a couple issues with that. First, I don't really want to leave around old, dead repository paths; nor do I want to delete them and break stuff. Second, it doesn't fix the issue for trunk.
The problem with documentation is that most people who use Haml as a plugin don't check *anything* relating to it with any sort of regularity. There's no way we could notify them other than just breaking their plugin installation. > Most definitely. Although if you're going to ask users to do a "script/ > plugin install" followed by a manual "mv" then you may as well just > advise them to install in one step using "svn" directly... But I think > that reorganizing the repository is still the best way to go. > > Cheers, > Wincent Actually, if you do use script/plugin with a svn:// URL, Rails is smart enough to work around this, but that requires that people have Subversion installed, which isn't the case (as we discovered when we got bug reports from having a svn:// URL in the download instructions). - Nathan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. 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/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
