I'll find out another way of adding transitive dependencies in a less insane way of reading the wiki and see those dependent plugins as you already suggested some good approaches. Even though I don't like the idea of forcing that dependent plugin, actually I like the way of JobDSL being less intrusive in order to support same plugins.
Thank you for your feedback Cheers, Víctor On Friday, 9 October 2015 18:57:51 UTC+2, Jesse Glick wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Victor Martinez > <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > since the workflow plugin is an active plugin and being in > > development actively, I wonder whether that particular dependency won't > > affect it. > > How so? As of 1.0 there should be no incompatible API changes. (Even > if there were, it would only affect the Workflow step, which I presume > you are not using.) > > > Besides of that, what's the Jenkins strategy about the Workflow plugin? > If > > it will be the standard process, shouldn't it be part of the core? > > Why? It does not need to be in core. If anything I would rather see > more things split out of the core into plugins. (There is a JIRA label > for this.) > -- 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/2982638c-9c6a-4309-b9df-4a378e6779dc%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
