On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:09:29 +0100 Colomban Wendling <lists....@herbesfolles.org> wrote:
> > This issue is the same > > for for all other validation tools (valgrind, etc). Actually such > > maintains bother can be enough reason to abandon geany-plugins and > > move plugins to somewhere else. > > It would probably be sad, and it's not the goal, but we try to find a > way to improve plugin quality. And to achieve this, we need to have > some criteria. > Of course the goal is not to enforce a ton of coding standards, > validation process and stuff, and if a particular developer have a > complain about something we will discuss it without problem. > > But OTOH, if a plugin developer finds annoying to try to enforce a > minimal quality on his plugin (the less crashers possible, not too > many memory leaks, etc.), maybe geany-plguins don't want him. But I'm > quite confident all developers want their code to be the better, so > they would care :) I second this :) Maybe the user also don't want to have his/her plugin either :) Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/
pgpgA2v9TBtfa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
