post 0.8 development

[Matthieu Moy]

Martin Pool wrote:
> 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".

100% agree. Keep it as simple as it should be, but no simpler ...

> 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.

I'd say "shelf" could remain a plugin if we get a "redo" for the 
existing "revert" in the core.

> 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.

Is there an easy way to have some plugins disabled by default, and easy 
to activate?

A BIG advantage of this is that those plugins would remain up-to-date 
with the core (I have some firefox extensions which refuse to install 
after a minor update of firefox, it is very annoying to have to disable 
some plugins because you've upgraded. It removes all the pleasure of 
upgrading !!).

-- 
Matthieu