Ted Husted wrote:
I'm not sure that anyone is maintaining them now. I'm not sure that
they all work.
My thinking is that if they are kept at another location where there
is a lower bar to entry, then perhaps we can attract someone to
maintain them.
Or, the other option is that no one picks them up and then they are
outdated to the changes in the s2 code base.
My concern is that some of the code in our distribution is not being
used, or otherwise fully tested, by anyone in the group. When that is
the case, then we should not be distributing the code.
This is my biggest concern. When I look at rails the biggest thing I
see is that every aspect of the core code works well, is integrated and
documented (or maybe I'm just lucky and this is all I've come across so
far). There is also a thriving plugin community, which is independent
from the core.
Perhaps what is needed is a more understood labeling mechanism. So far
we have "experimental", but there are experimental features that are
documented and in excellent shape - so much so that I am using them in
production code. And there is other non-labeled code that I am very
cautious of using (XSLT results).
For the plugins kept in s2, the other change I would like to see is
independent life cycles. If the code has not changed, I'm not sure why
its version needs to be incremented (other than staying with the s2 core
version). Would independent SVN repos help here?
In retrospect, perhaps keeping the dojo plugin in s2 is the way to go
(the discussion that started this), but I still believe that an
independent life cycle is needed (someone just asked whether 2.0.x was
going to upgrade dojo from 0.4 to 0.9).
We should
archive it, and, perhaps, for added value, make it available at
another location.
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
