post 0.8 development

Matthieu Moy Matthieu.Moy at
Fri May 12 11:44:59 BST 2006

Martin Pool wrote:
> On 10 May 2006, Erik Bågfors <zindar at> wrote:
>> On 5/10/06, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy at> 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 !!).


More information about the bazaar mailing list