Mmm, I realise my last message is ambiguous.
I mean, should I start a vote?
Without any answers I'll assume it's a lazy consensus
Thanks
Jacques
Le 12/04/2017 à 08:24, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi,
Without any reactions, and because I believe this is important I'll start a vote
If I get no attention at all, I'll consider this is a lazy consensus and will
enforce this rule in the committers page in wiki
Thanks
Jacques
Le 14/03/2017 à 08:25, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
To sum up and as a kind of TL;DR, the question is <<should we "force" the committers
to maintain the plugins?>>
Jacques
Le 14/03/2017 à 08:17, Jacques Le Roux a écrit :
Hi,
In recent discussions I wrote
<<I believe committers need now to agree about checking out all plugins and maintaining them as we did before. This must be documented in our
policies.>> in <<[DISCUSSION] Plugins: svn:external or Gradle Task?)>> thread
<<It seems to me that if a committer, committing something on the framework, breaks a plugins s/he is also responsible of fixing the plugins
issue.>> in <<[proposal] actions to take with plugins>> thread
but got no attention so far.
Beside the last pending technical aspects defined in the <<[DISCUSSION] Proposed Task List for Moving Forward with Gradle and the Trunk>>
http://markmail.org/message/6r4qnuu5v2c2aes2
6. Investigate how to create a plugin repository with dependencies clearly
defined, not only on external libraries but also other plugins!
7. Investigate and propose a methodology for maintaining plugins and versioning
compatibility with OFBiz.
8. Investigate and propose a methodology for upgrading plugins within OFBiz
I think we need to agree, not at a technical but political level, about how the
plugins will be maintained, IMO not as second-class citizens!
This is a very important topic because with the trunk split it's already there
and the plugins could suffer from the split.
Thanks
Jacques
