-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Peter,
Am 03.08.2011 22:01, schrieb Peter Suter: > Hi I wondered if the proposal [1] to replace the Trac notification > system with the Announcer plugin was still on the table / in the > works. What is the plan and how could one help? Thanks for considering to contribute your time to this too. The original plan discussed by Robert Corsaro (doki_pen) and me has been to bring TracAnnouncer into better shape before moving a stabilized version over to Trac core. I've meant to go for it, when I did some documentation around the effort started by Robert. It was a major internal rework coupled with a new approach towards really flexible and still intuitive per-user configuration. But then I became aware of sever lack of maintenance for AccountManager, and work for it consumed too much of my spare time. Only recently Itamar Ostricher (itamarost) came up with a bundle of fixes and improvements for the TagsPlugin, so I'm still not quite there to dedicate all my time to TracAnnouncer. > The proposal page mentions API compatibility, i18n, subscription > system improvements and a ticket review. Would simply leaving the > current API in place as well (marked as deprecated) make sense? Sure, leaving a wrapper preserving current TracNotification API was not an option but more of a pre-requisite to make the migration acceptable in the first place. > The plugin page [3] seems to suggest i18n support is working, and the > subscription system seems to be quite advanced. I guess the started > ticket review is probably out-of-date again by now? Well, i18n is working, but not yet for the message templates. Sure the ticket review is bound to be outdated by now. Message encryption support is still very unfinished and lacking much of the configuration support I'd like to provide for it, to make it's application doable even without much cryptography expertise. > I couldn't find any work in progress (unless the empty sandbox [2] > really is the only WIP so far). Are there other preliminary tasks to > be finished before an attempt to integrate the code makes sense? Or > could one simply start with that to get things rolling again? Only recently Ryan Ollos (rjollos) nudged me about TagsPlugin and TracAnnouncer, and promised to donate some development time within the next few months for pushing issues for both of them. Robert, as the current maintainer, Ryan, you and me, this looks like it's going to happen. Fixing and improving TracAnnouncer `trunk` branch, including the additional TracNotification compatibility layer still seem like a good approach. You should get at least SVN commit for the start. I could request this for you. Should I do so? We could arrange an experimental migration branch or the like. Another option, that I could support actively, would involve working on a copy of the plugin code at Bitbucket with the added bonus of more visible forks, pull requests and Mercurial Queues, if you'd favor that kind of collaboration. I work with MQ a lot here locally before pushing back to the t-h.o SVN repo. As far as I know, finally pushing to the sandbox at t.e.o is reserved to Robert and you, since Ryan and me lack access to it. Yours, Steffen Hoffmann (hasienda) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk46qV4ACgkQ31DJeiZFuHdfBQCeLI4nRxfM6d1FrmcvrmXJPqP+ lIcAn37r/WFMFrQBd3W6woZ5hv5AvkQm =9RPN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/trac-dev?hl=en.
