On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 11:59:55 -0700 (PDT) john lunzer <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think it would be nice if there was a process in place to > differentiate essential plugins in a community sanctioned, official, > and at least partially objective way. They could be called "official > plugins" and it would provide a much smaller subset of the most > important plugins for new users to explore. I think this is a good idea. I've more than once proposed a header of tagged information for plugins along the lines of: maintainer: [email protected] status: tested 2015-08-08 depends: None updated: 2014-11-22 default: False but this has never happened. Perhaps just labeling plugins "Official" or not would be more doable. I'd still be included to do it the same way, maybe with just a single tag: status: official 2015-08-08 or experimental or proof-of-concept or has-issues or duplicate or broken or ... Basically we need some triage on all of them - but simply tagging the "premium" or "official" ones would be a good start and smaller task. I'd probably use "production" rather than "official". @enabled-plugins could sort entries based on the status: tag. Cheers -Terry > Official plugins would ideally meet some higher quality standard and > unmaintained plugins whose functionally degrades as Leo changes could > lose "official" status. > > I believe that this step is important in creating a friendly > "default" user experience for new users. I have expressed this before > in a less official manner but now that the idea of marketing Leo has > come up I'd like to get people's opinion in this context. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
