On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 6:04 PM R. Tyler Croy <[email protected]> wrote: > The key aspect of it is _not_ the selection of > plugins, but rather how those plugins get out there to users.
That just means you are concealing one aspect behind another, since the only plugins which would be distributed using the “evergreen” mechanism are those we consider, well, “essential” enough to track. Everything else comes from the update center (or is blocked outright). While I certainly agree that having two names was confusing, I think the selection of plugins is a critical concern that should not be brushed aside as a detail. I recall KK discussing the notion of an Essentials team broadly trusted to work on (review, merge) anything in the transitive dependency closure of essential plugins (including core and component libraries), to reduce the friction of deploying coherent features via Evergreen, including tracking metrics, managing feature flags, and so on. That is of course a big effort and a major change to developer workflow, but it is also much more of what users care about than the fact that they no longer need to spend time on the *Updates* screen. It is about defining and delivering a coherent product. Perhaps you just mean to disclaim responsibility for that effort, and someone else TBA is going to step in? Or are we really dropping the overall goals that were proposed for Essentials initially? -- 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/CANfRfr1%2B3zdFZ_fbkKr0Tobt7Ke2wHc6EnF5_huq%2BpGKFDAC9A%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
