Plugin entry criteria

[Matt Rogers]

On Tuesday 11 August 2009 02:48:36 am Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 10.08.09 20:58:04, Matt Rogers wrote:
> > I was wondering if there were criteria established that provided
> > guidelines to developers as to the requirements necessary for a plugin to
> > go into KDevPlatform.
> >
> > The reason I ask is because I've seen two plugins enter kdevplatform with
> > no review that the larger development community is aware of
> 
> Just curious: Which ones?

openwith and the patchreview plugin. 

> 
> >, and at least one plugin that could potentially be moved to
> >kdevplatform (or kdevelop proper) that's still in playground.
> >
> > Do we want to enforce review rules for plugins a la kdereview or not?
> 
> Hmm, this probably makes sense for people that don't regurlarly work on
> the codebase, when moving plugins into one of the two trunk/KDE modules.
> 

It makes sense for people that do as well, at least, IMO.

> Generally the criteria to have any plugin in the two modules in
> trunk/KDE is that its well maintained and useful. For KDevPlatform the
> additional requirement exists that it needs to be useful not only for
> KDevelop, but also other IDE's based on KDevPlatform. In particular
> stuff for compiling certain types of projects, editing .ui files,
> debugging compiled applications etc. are not supposed to be in
> kdevplatform.
> 

Yeah, but who determines that usefulness?

> (This also means that documentview and grepview will move sometime
> before the release).
> 
> Andreas
> 

You say they are moving, but don't explain why. Could you elaborate?

-- 
Matt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20090811/40d7ebfb/attachment.sig>