Bzr plugins *must* die!

Andrew Cowie andrew at
Wed Sep 24 07:17:57 BST 2008

On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 10:47 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> What I was trying to use was "bzr shelve".

If this command is stable and well tested, can it not move into Bazaar's
core like `switch` did? The two rather go hand in hand.


While plugin architectures certainly casual development easier, they
really do seem to be an anti-pattern when it comes to software
deployment, especially when muxed with the rhythms of distribution
packaging and releases.

Bazaar is experiencing exactly the same problems that projects like
Eclipse, GStreamer (and for that matter pretty much the entire Java
stack) have long faced: there's not much point in having a plugin
architecture if it implies installing software that is out-of-band to
the control and coherence providing by your distro's packaging system.

I for one am *paranoid* every time I install a new version of Bazaar,
wondering what's going to suddenly fail to work afterwards _this_ time. 
It's pretty clear that others feel the same way - and this from some of
Bazaar's most ardent supporters.

Clearly the Bazaar hackers like their plugin system, and it is
undeniably sophisticated. And while I do not expect the associated level
of user frustration going away while it remains, I can't imagine the
Bazaar hackers doing away with it either. So despite my best efforts to
be constructive, this post boils down to "me too". Alas.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the bazaar mailing list