playground/devtools/kdevelop4-extra-plugins/coverage

[Aleix Pol]

On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Andreas Pakulat <apaku at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 27.12.09 21:30:13, Daniel Calviño Sánchez wrote:
> > > > > > Increase plugin version to 8 to adjust to changes in commit
> 1063112
> > > > >
> > > > > I actually wanted these plugins to stay at version 7 until someone
> takes
> > > > > over active maintainership so people don't use unmaintained plugins
> that
> > > > > might have tons of bugs.
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't know about that.
> >
> > I use coverage and veritas/xtest plugins almost daily and I was just
> > trying to keep them updated. When I have some spare time I also fix
> > the bugs I found and add new features, but I can't commit to truly
> > maintain them because I don't have enough time.
> >
> > Should I decrease the plugin version in coverage and xtest to 7 again?
>
> If you can at least keep them compiling and working, then thats fine. BTW,
> does that mean the veritas library compiles and works for the xtest plugin?
> I can't recall wether I made that work and it was just the C++-specific
> code that isn't compilable anymore.
>
> > > Actually most probably 95% of the plugins in playground should be moved
> to
> > > unmaintained/4 (or whatever the dumping ground is named now).
> >
> > So, what is playground meant for then? Just plugins which are actively
> > developed but not ready yet to get into a KDevelop/KDevPlatform
> > release?
>
> Its only meant for code thats "in the works" towards a release, so in
> theory stuff thats not being worked on should be moved out of it. If you're
> actively using the coverage and veritas stuff then they can stay there.
>
> > > > That's the whole point of playground, I thought. It's filled with
> stuff that's
> > > > hasn't necessarily seen a release. If it gets packaged or used, then
> you just
> > > > don't have to deal with that stuff by closing bugs or ignoring it, or
> > > > whatever.
> > >
> > > But we do, because people are filing bugreports against those plugins.
> And we
> > > can't do anything about it except making them not load anymore or
> moving
> > > them to unmaintained (which means nobody will ever find them again).
> >
> > This question is going to show that I have no experience in bug
> > management, but... isn't getting bug reports a good thing? I mean,
> > maybe there are bugs filled against those plugins and nobody paying
> > attention to them.
>
> The problem is exactly that latter part. If someone reports a bug and it
> then just lies around on the pile without anybody ever looking at it, that
> bugreporter is less likely to report a bug again. And we certainly don't
> want that. So we need to at least tell them that the code they're using is
> not maintained and its unlikely that somebody will do something about his
> problem. So somebody needs to read these reports and reply to them (usually
> thats me), which of course takes time.
>
> I think we really need to move plugins that nobody has any interest in from
> playground to unmaintained. If somebody comes around asking for git support
> we can always point them there.
>
> Well, I think it's easier to tell people that if they want git support they
have to work on the playground plugin instead of telling them to move
something from unmaintained.

It's good to have these plugins in playground, gives the impression that if
we wanted/had the manpower it would be working


> Andreas
>
> --
> You look tired.
>
> --
> KDevelop-devel mailing list
> KDevelop-devel at kdevelop.org
> https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinfo/kdevelop-devel
>

Thanks,
Aleix
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20091228/5d79dd29/attachment.html>