on Wed Jan 30 2008, "Alec Thomas" <alec-AT-swapoff.org> wrote:
> On 29/01/2008, John M Camara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Agreed. Although there could be 2 distributions. One that would be >> bare bones and another that comes with a number of popular plugins >> that are maintained with the core. > > I think you've hit on the key word here: "maintained". The current > system allows us to distribute maintenance of extra features out to > plugin authors, which IMO is a good thing. To bring these into core I wasn't suggesting bringing them into core, if by "core" you mean the parts of Trac that are always there no matter what. > and up to the same level of quality as the rest of Trac, some of the > plugins would need not-insignificant work (and I speak as an author of > several such plugins). Then they're not ready for inclusion. Simple. At Boost.org, we have a fairly rigorous review process (http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm), and people are actually motivated to get their libraries reviewed and accepted. I'm not suggesting you need something that formal; I'm just noting this to show that people aren't discouraged from contributing by the existence of high standards. > And then there's the additional ongoing maintenance that this would > bring. More features, more bugs, more work. Naturally, the submitter has a responsibility to maintain the plugin and/or find a replacement maintainer and it may be removed from the distribution if that is not done. > All for features that may > or may not be used by the majority of users. That's another criterion the team would consider when deciding whether to accept a plugin for standardization. At Boost several libraries have been rejected if their applications were too esoteric. > One option is to have a distribution of Trac maintained by the community > that includes a bunch of frequently used plugins like AccountManager, > XmlRpc, etc. That way users can choose to download the featureful > distribution if they want to go the easy path, or build up their own > features manually as they do now. This could be a "blessed" distribution > on t.e.o or maintained on trac-hacks, or whatever. > > Question is, who's going to organise and maintain it? I think a separately-maintained "featureful trac" distribution would cause a lot more trouble in the long run (release coordination, maintenance, and testing headaches), and it wouldn't accomplish the goal of bringing plugin developers into the fold. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://boost-consulting.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
