[RFC] Moving uncommited changes from a tree to another.

[John Arbash Meinel]

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Martin Pool wrote:
>>> I've been thinking more about plugins vs core.  I think I'm a bit more
>>> in favour of things going in to core, for a few reasons:
>>>
>>>  - slightly easier to find them
>>>  - questions can be answered with "use bzr shove", rather than "use
>>>    bzrtools shove, which you have to get from xxx and install by yyy"
>>>  - in the process of coming in we can get more design, ui and code
>>>    review
> 
> The process of getting stuff in can also be an argument against plugins,
> because it's much easier for people to get code into a plugin than into
> the core.

I tend to do test stuff in a plugin. But it means that I also have to
try to be api compatible with multiple bzr.dev versions. Which is
typically a pain.

> 
>>>  - once it's in it will stay tested and maintained

...

> In London, we were talking about the notion of "core plugins"; plugins
> we ship that aren't active by default.  Does this mean you've decided
> against that?

...

>>>  - when someone wants to experiment unconstrained (as with bzrtools
>>>    perhaps)
> 
> Yes, I look at bzrtools as a place where I can do UI experiments, but I
> do care about code quality there.  For the truly hacky stuff, I have a
> 'hax' plugin.
> 
>>>  - when it's really site-specific
>>>  - when it's integration with something else that many people won't have
>>>    or want to use (editors etc)
>>>
>>> And then there's a middle ground of standard plugins.
> 
> I'm a bit confused.  Do you mean "plugins that implement a standard"?
> 
> Aaron

I *think* he means the same idea about 'common' plugins. Right now, I
think 'bzrtools' is filling that role. The Launchpad plugin is always
bundled (and always active). But bzrtools is the only one with a real
package, and thus the only one that 90% of the people use.

I'm not sure how we would ship things with the core of bzr. But I think
having a recommended/standard set of plugins would be wise.
Then the developers could all have them installed, and a plain selftest
run would run all of those tests.

John
=:->

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060809/8df5dbd1/attachment.pgp