Plugin entry criteria

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 11.08.09 11:21:02, Matt Rogers wrote:
> 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.

IMHO it doesn't, at least not a complete review like kdereview does.
Talking about wether we should have a plugin doing XYZ in kdevplatform
or kdevelop does make sense, but I'm not going to look deeper into the
code that does XYZ unless I find a bug/missing feature on it - at least
not if one of our core-devs works on. I'm pretty confident that all of
them have a clear idea of where we're aiming at.

> > 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?

"We", in the case of the two you've mentioned above, David, Aleix and
myself talked about patchreview plugin. And for the openwith we had two
wishlist reports open and a couple of people asking for it already.
 
> > (This also means that documentview and grepview will move sometime
> > before the release).
> 
> You say they are moving, but don't explain why. Could you elaborate?

Well, because both of them should be available for any kdevplatform app,
not just kdevelop. Neither of the two is bound to "developing C++ apps",
which is the main use-case for kdevelop. Both of them are general
purpose plugins and as such should be in the platform module.

Andreas

-- 
Beauty and harmony are as necessary to you as the very breath of life.