I've been reviewing the PR and wanted to get community feedback. It looks like this feedback was very valuable by improving the docs and the versioning.
+1 -Dew On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:55 PM Rawlin Peters <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:35 PM Robert Butts <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >there's the question of the plugin interface versioning. How will we be > > versioning the plugin interface with guarantees to not break any plugins > > outside of our repo? > > > > The way Grove handles that, which I also put in this README, is by > > recommending people prefix plugins with either their organization name, > or > > a GUID. The plugin interface shouldn't ever have hooks or variables > > removed; but if it does, we should be able to follow the usual > > deprecate-then-remove cycle. > > > > >Should we start out by tagging this plugin framework as experimental so > > that we don't really provide any compatibility guarantees while we're > still > > working out the kinks? > > > > I honestly don't think that's necessary, I can't imagine any of the > > existing data or hooks being removed, and it simply wasn't a problem in > > Grove or the Monitor. We just added hook functions and data as we needed > > them. > > Sounds good, I just wanted to make sure plugin compatibility was > considered, and it sounds like it has been. I don't really have any > other thoughts or concerns now that there's some initial documentation > and even the microservice example. Thanks! >
