Tim Williams wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > > > The "release process" issue? relative to plugins I assume?
Yep, as i said, i reckon that our core releae process is fine. Just the release process for each plugin needs attention. > The draft > release doc in the plugins directory suggests that its possible to > release plugins independent of the core but couldn't we, for now, just > as well continue to do what we do and release the plugins with the > core? Ah, but it sounds like you are misunderstanding. we only release the PDF plugin with the core. For the rest we direct the user to our website to get additional software. This is the problem. However, good point that you raise. We could just change our approach and deliver all plugins with the core. Would we need to change our process for local deployment of plugins? Still enabling developers to operate as efficiently as they do now. There was a reason for keeping it separate. Anyway, this might get us over the initial hurdle. > In other words, it seems to me we're meeting Roy's intent > fairly well by releasing the whole bundle together - formal process, > signed, etc. And meeting the distribution location requirements. The source release and everything required to build it is released there. Additional convenience packages, such as our released plugins could then be provided elsewhere. > I guess, what I'm wondering is... can we punt on plugin releases, move > dispatcher to /plugins and just vote on the whole bundle as normal? See above, that is not normal, but might be a solution for this time. -David > Or, do you see something that needs addressing now, before a 0.9 > release? Sorry, you were probably hoping for answers not questions:) > > --tim
