I totally agree that what we have now is a step forward from what we had before. My proposal was just my idea of what the next step should look like ;-).
Am I reading you right that you support my proposed changes? On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Yann Hodique <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Philip Jackson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Yann - what do you think? > > Hi, sorry for the delays it's kind of crazy at the moment :) > > Basically I'd like to stress the fact that the extensions API is > actually *not* an API. It's some kind of POC, covering only the things > that were required to be able to split things out of magit "core". > So I totally agree that it probably does not cover at all extension > writers needs. Now, in my view, it's only a first step towards a > cleaner interface, that must be grown according to some real use > cases. magit-svn and magit-topic are only providing basic ones. > > Still I personally see the current situation as a (little) progress, > compared to the previous one: it's now actually possible to generate > magit-like interface from the outside of magit (which was impossible > due to both the absence of hooks and the use of "static" macros). > So once again, the only goal of this first step was to break the > barrier. Next step is to make it cleanly. In this regard, I'd say that > developing an extension outside of the magit repository right now *is* > premature ;) > Then, and only then we might see an ecosystem of extensions grow. I'm > thinking of the non-SVN vcs support, an interface for repo (android) > would be great, and some integration with patchwork (used for example > by org-mode for patch review) could definitely be used. > > I totally agree the shape of extensions currently sucks (except for > the inserter/actions definition part, which looks just like regular > inserter code, so I guess it's mostly right). I think in the near > future, they should probably turned into minor-modes. > Having a quick look at Nathan's proposal, I think that should include > what's in there, solve the activation/deactivation issue (which also > totally sucks) and even allow a per-project setting (which I'd like a > lot). > > I have to admit that for my needs, the inserter code was clearly the > main target (I need to display different things in magit-status, from > extensions). The rest was only required side-effect, so it's > definitely not polished. > From what I understand, Nathan's focus is more on the minor-mode > aspects. So I see no fundamental incompatibility in all this. Quite > the contrary actually, and I'm pretty happy to see that chances are we > might end up having something really nice. > All we need is code :) > > Yann. >
