I think we should do this… At one point in time we should not be afraid to really drop stuff which needs evolution our has proven to be done in an other/better way. I do like copatability - but on the other hand the users want quality and if we find a way to clearly state the changes - the users will migrate to the cleaner version. Its the same with every product they buy - just let them know that there will be compatibility issues… Maybe a new AdminMonitor service and an enhancement of the update center to inform the user in the update center about incompatible changes would help some time in the future too - but fear of evolution (renewal and droping of features/implementations) does not help at all. my two cents… /Domi
On 08.08.2013, at 14:09, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: > My desired changes will migrate existing credentials into the credentials > store and be done. > > The existing SVNCredentialProvider extension point would be dead. That > extension point does not provide sufficient information to upscale it to a > credentials-plugin CredentialsProvider... Though it would be relatively > trivial for implementations to map themselves into the new framework > (assuming they have the required information - which they should but just are > not required to expose. Credentials Domain support will let them provide near > exact equivalent functionality) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Stephen Connolly > Date: Thursday, 8 August 2013 > Subject: [POLL] how addicted are you to the current Subversion plugin's > authentication model? > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > In working on integrating with the Credentials plugin there is, from my point > of view, a lot of insanity and crazy ways of doing auth. > > How attached are people to the existing way? > > The way I want to deliver is that you have a drop down underneath any of the > module remote url fields which lists the relevant credentials for that URL > (including none) and you would always make a selection (even if that > selection is leaving the default of "none" selected) > > I would like to ditch entirely the existing model of credentials and go > straight for this simplified model. > > What do people think? > > > > -- > Sent from my phone > > > > -- > Sent from my phone > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Jenkins Developers" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
