Thomas Moschny wrote: > 2008/6/20 Robert C Corsaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> [...] the issue is that we have forked some of >> the plugins, [...] > > What were the reasons for forking? Would be nice to explain it on your > website. Will you invest some time bringing your changes back to > 'upstream'? > > Plugins have pros and cons, but one downside is that people might > become confused if there slightly different yet not different named > plugins out there (and they might even get annoyed after creating a > patch for one of them and later discovering that there is another one, > with the problem already solved ;) ) Up to now, at least trac-hacks > was kind of semi-official. > >
I'm so glad you asked. Yes. One of our stated goals is to not fork anything. We have tried very hard to push all changes upstream, but sometimes it doesn't work out. We may decide to adopt some of the plugins we have forked. I have inquired about a couple, but haven't received definitive responses. All forks are explained in on the wiki[1] and in the source[2]. The source will always be more up-to-date. We do need to maintain our per-plugin wiki pages better. We would like to keep hosting them on our own site, but probably just make a page on trac-hacks pointing to our site. [1] http://code.optaros.com/trac/oforge/wiki/OForgeConfiguration [2] http://code.optaros.com/svn/oforge/trunk/forks/fork-notes.txt --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Users" group. To post to this group, send email to trac-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
