-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 19, 2007, at 1:05 AM, John Hampton wrote:
> > Noah Kantrowitz wrote: >> +1 from on everything except the tracext namespace. With the >> global plugins folder in 0.10 I don't think this is needed >> anymore. If someone >> chooses to use site-packages over the global folder, that is >> their call. > > I'm definitely +1 on the merge too. However, why not add tracext? I > like the idea of having third party plugins use a different namespace, > even though it's not technically *needed*. Any reason why adding > tracenv is a bad idea with the advent of the global plugins folder? 1. It is an abuse of the namespacing stuff in setuptools. All plugins are not part of a single package. 2. Redundancy is bad. This offers no new functionality really. 3. It makes it adds one more step to making a plugin. 4. It makes it somewhat harder to interface "normal" code with plugins, as the namespacing system in setuptools is rather weird. - --Noah -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFsq7IA9fEp2eRsU8RAl61AKCOeeKAErIWoUgsQC6JkGGwzXlX2gCg2mfg PhubDnWRwp9vfqdKntz2Zt0= =qkKs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
