[Geany-devel] Ideas on increasing quality of plugins
matthewbrush at xxxxx
Sat Mar 12 00:11:52 UTC 2011
On 03/11/11 15:27, Frank Lanitz wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:41:54 -0800
> Matthew Brush<matthewbrush at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 4. Removing unsupported plugins from releases
>>> what do you think about the following scheme: divide all pluging
>>> - "supported" (that are acting really well)
>>> - "unsupported" or "bad" (having problems) ?
>>> So, every geany-plugins release will contain several packages:
>>> "geany-plugins", "geany-plugins-bad or "geany-plugins-unsupported",
>>> something like this
>> This is like GStreamer plugins and I think it's a very good idea.
>> They could be grouped in the configure.ac file to add an option like
>> --enable-bad and --enable--unsupported or something.
> How this is going to be maintained? Somebody has to take over
> responsibility to set the flag.
I would be willing to perform certain checks on a few of the plugins (at
least the ones that don't require tons of coding expertise), and if a
few other people volunteered, it wouldn't be much of a job. Even if
it's not as formal as the previous discussions, just an email notifying
the plugin author that one of these criteria is not met, just as an example:
- Up to date documentation with the things from my last message, for
- Proper license/license file
- Passes some checks such as 'cppcheck' being discussed on the ML.
- Performs its purpose without dumping errors on the
I guess just to have someone else confirm these things. For example
with the Devhelp plugin I wrote, I don't even really know if it
works/installs on anyone else's computer except mine. I'm not sure if
anyone is using it, or anyone (besides yourself) has even tried it. For
all I know, everyone compiling from source could be disabling my plugin
because of errors or something. I would be glad to have a 2nd set of
eyes just give it a quick once over it to make sure it's installing and
serving its purpose as expected and the documentation isn't out of date,
and so on, on a regular basis.
Maybe it's too much work, but it seems possible.
Matthew Brush (codebrainz)
More information about the Devel