Homebrew packages for OS X updated for 2.7.0

[Fred McCann]

I’m already knee-deep in plugins, so I’ll see what I can do to make a list of what appears to be working and what isn’t. I agree that step one at this point should be triage.

- Fred McCann
fred at sharpnoodles.com


> On Feb 19, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Richard Wilbur <richard.wilbur at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Fred McCann <fred at sharpnoodles.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> I’m more than happy to update the plugin list. Do I need an account to do
>> that? I’m don’t see any edit options.
> 
> You can use your launchpad.net account to login and edit the wiki.
> Just click the "login" link at the bottom of the page, click the
> "Login" button on the next page, if your browser doesn't automatically
> redirect click the "Continue" button, and you will find yourself at
> the Ubuntu One (OpenID server) login page.  After you provide your
> launchpad credentials, approve the release of authentication
> information to wiki.bazaar.canonical.com and you will be authorized to
> edit (the links should appear).
> 
>> I’m still working through these, but it seems like quite a few are
>> abandoned and in some case have been rolled into bzr core. How can
>> we get that cleaned up?
> 
> I'm creating a list of plugins that have been specifically orphaned
> (previous maintainer asked for someone to take over).  It seems to me
> that if no willing person steps up to adopt them, we could consider
> putting them under the auspices of the bzr-core team, or some such,
> which would lend more flexibility in authorizing maintenance and
> releases.
> 
> I'm all for updating the list with what works.  I'd also be interested
> in setting up some automated testing so it is easier to tell whether
> or not they work without having to branch every plugin and run it's
> test suite against current bzr trunk.
> 
>> I think the best is to make a clear cut about what works with bzr-2.7
>> and what doesn't.
> 
> Yes.  Then we'll have a list of what plugins need some love.
> 
>> If enough people care and help we can then add more to the what works
>> list by doing releases for the plugins whose trunk is owned by lp:~bzr
>> (bzr-stats for example), it's harder if they aren't (bzrtools for
>> example) in that case, reaching to the project owner and nicely asking
>> for a release may be the way to go.
> 
> If we can offer a merge proposal for a branch with the fix, then we
> might make the project owner's job even easier.
> 
>> It’s lousy advertising to list very old plugins that don’t work
>> anymore.
> 
> I think it is unfortunate to list plugins that don't work anymore
> under the "Working" status.  On the other hand, I'd be interested in
> collecting those that don't work anymore in a separate list with
> appropriate status so we don't advertise them as working but have a
> chance to remedy the situation.
> 
>> Also, is there any plan/way to suggest that we look into rolling
>> some fundamental plugins like xmloutput, bzrtools (or some portion
>> of it), bisect, extmerge, etc into the core bzr codebase?
>> 
>> 
>> There has been discussions about that, but it's up to the project owners
>> to do so. I know that in some cases, copyright issues were raised and
>> blocked the process.
> 
> I wonder how hard those issues would be to resolve--especially for the orphans?
> 
>> It seems like quite a few critical batteries are not included in
>> the box.
>> 
>> 
>> It's a hard balance to find between freedom to evolve in the plugins and
>> the additional work to carry them inside the core bzr tree.
> 
> I understand for new ideas and things that are a work in progress, the
> freedom to change/evolve as needs and desires dictate is very useful
> and encourages the process.  On the other hand if the plugins are
> orphaned, stable, or mature, it might be worth revisiting the
> discussion on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> Richard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20160219/9a4fc6d9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20160219/9a4fc6d9/attachment.pgp>