Hey Christopher, I've contacted Stephan, the owner of the other plugin, to see what we can do about it.
I'm sure adding the existing code to your plugin without replacing the > existing plugin would "take less time" for *you*, but it would be > terrible for everyone else, and that's why we want to prevent plugin > proliferation. Of course I was implying that it would take less time for us, considering we're the ones doing the work, right? We are using the plugin in our company, so from our point of view everything is good and done. We're just trying to give something back to the community, but we do have limited time to invest in this pursuit. We're also taking some responsibility on our shoulders by trying to maintain the plugin, so the least we've expected was better cooperation. Also, I do not see what would be terrible for everybody else. They would just use a new plugin which would replace the existing one. There would be only one new checkbox to fill and no other persistency problems. Granted, proliferation is to be avoided. But I do believe that individual cases may appear when the given rules only do harm, and this is one of them. I'll come back with a reply from Stephan and we'll see what future course of action we can take. Regards, Catalin -- 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/c2242329-e8b5-4aa8-b3dc-26681af6af2e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
