post 0.8 development

[Martin Pool]

On 10 May 2006, Erik Bågfors <zindar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/06, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy at imag.fr> wrote:
> >Great (I had forgotten I didn't have bzrtools installed on my laptop ;-) )!
> >
> >Then, I'd say that before the 1.0, you should decide on what should stay
> >in bzrtools, and what should go in bzr. Probably "switch" should be in bzr.
> >
> >This is mostly a political issue I suppose (when to say « hey, stop
> >complaining about X, it's not in the core bzr, and is not officially
> >supported », and when to say « hey, why don't you use the Y command,
> >it's available by default »).

Yes, we should decide that, and ideally there would be some sensible
definition of what belongs where.  I don't think it should be extreme in
either direction "merge everything we possible can" or "only the strict
minimum".

For example shelf is very cool and I love it dearly, but is probably a
good candidate for a plugin.  However we should make it easy for people
to get an idea of plugins they will probably want.

> Personally, I like the idea of not having everything in core.  Instead
> make core something small enough for someone to learn, and having
> plugins for the rest...
> 
> I don't really care about "switch" here, that was just an example

Steve Alexander had an interesting suggestion the other day, which was
that we can make bring some things into the bzr tree, but keep them
using the plugin interface and being separated in e.g. a plugins/
directory.  This gives generally-useful features to people without
making them downlaod another package, but also lets them serve as
examples of how to write plugins, and gives developers direct feedback
on whether the plugin api is appropriate & useful.

-- 
Martin