Id personally pefer a single repo per plugin, some plugins will develop quicker than others and with a single repo you would end up tagging and releasing plugins that havent changed. I dont think there is an overhead with using maven etc.
I also think there should be no tight coupling between the plugin and the broker apart from implementing a specific API that should be set in stone. Even better would be the ability to just to drop a war or jar into the lib dir and have it deployed automagically via annotations on the class or method perhaps. On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 22:58, <michael.andre.pea...@me.com.invalid> wrote: > I just want it clarified what will be the rules of adopting a new plugin > or extension. Likewise the rule for archiving/killing off dead ones. > > > > > And that is applied generically. > > > > > E.g. > > > > > At least one pmc member needs to sponsor (doesnt have to be the committer > or contributor) > > > > > Any third party dependency plugin including dependency to third party > client jar must be apache license approved. (E.g. we can have plugin or > extension for a closed source commerical tool) > > > > > > > Just want the criteria decides agreed and documented up front to avoid > less issues later on what can go in and what cant > > > > > Get Outlook for Android > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:27 PM +0100, "Clebert Suconic" < > clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > All questions need to be same > > @Michael Pearce perhaps it's my english as second language here, but > this to me sounded like "All your basis are belong to us" :) > > Can you explain what you meant here? > > > > > >
