Dependencies in the PPA for Jaunty

[Ian Clatworthy]

Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 14:35 -0700, Maritza Mendez wrote:

> At the risk of being off-topic, there are some views that I'd like to
> offer.

> I realize that the plugin architecture has been really helpful for the
> people hacking on bzr. Which is great. No one would quibble with the
> sophistication of bzr's internal modularity. But I'm really not sure
> that plugins (as a publicly visible mechanism thence requiring packaging
> work) has lead to a good user experience.

Andrew,

Thanks for taking the time to put together this email. I strongly
support our plugin *architecture* but our plugin *processes* need a lot
of work as you've outlined.

We certainly hope to look at this issue in some depth post 2.0. Pre 2.0
though, I think we can still consider doing things better, e.g.
including more plugins in the core (e.g. xml-output, bzr-upload?) and/or
running a broader sets of unittests *pre* packaging an RC.

Ian C.