[Geany-devel] Improving usability and handling for Geany-Plugins

[Frank Lanitz]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:13:03 +0100
Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:26:02 +0100, Colomban wrote:
> 
> >Le 19/01/2011 18:45, Dimitar Zhekov a écrit :
> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:13:51 +0100
> >> Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In fact, I propose to do exactly this: all plugins of the combined
> >>> geany-plugins releases should have the version of the
> >>> geany-plugins release itself. Everything else would just cause
> >>> confusion, IMO.
> >> 
> >> So we are going to have my_plugin version 0.5, followed by 0.20,
> >> and then 0.6 or 0.7? Which one is the latest?
> 
> 0.20.
> I was never convinced maintaining plugins within g-p and outside is a
> good idea. AFAIK there are only a few plugins for which this actually
> matches (geanylatex, geanyvc). 

Only geanylatex is left here. geanyVC is part since about 0.18.1

> I just fail to see how this could be an
> advantage. I only see the many disadvantages beginning at users'
> confusion and ending at duplicate maintenance efforts.
> And for plugins which are part of the combined geany-plugins project,
> these should all have the version of the g-p project itself as their
> are released together as one big package. 

I'm fine for dong this with the plugins developed inside the combined
project. I will not do it for geanyLaTeX as I want to keep freedom to
do independent releases. 
 
Cheers, 
Frank 
-- 
http://frank.uvena.de/en/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110119/6ad7e6ef/attachment.pgp>