On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 04:09:34PM -0000, John A Meinel wrote:
> I would recommend moving the file to plugins/DISABLED rather than
> plugins/.disabled.
plugins/DISABLED is also what I've been using.
> It isn't a big thing, but you don't really need to hide them, just move
> them 1 level deeper. To me, all caps makes it just as obvious that it is
> a special directory, and means that people can find it (it isn't hidden
> by default).
>
>
> This is starting to sound a lot like 'apt for plugins'. And I think
> keeping in mind that we are looking for a remote registry which
> contains references we can update from, means that we can create
> something that does more than just update plugins.
I'm uncomfortable duplicating package managers work. But if people want
to build it I'm not going to stop them. Thinking in that direction
though, a --system option or such to make it available for more than one
user, but writing in a package management controlled dir would meet my
objection.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 04:09:34PM -0000, John A Meinel wrote:
> I would recommend moving the file to plugins/DISABLED rather than
> plugins/.disabled.
plugins/DISABLED is also what I've been using.
> It isn't a big thing, but you don't really need to hide them, just move
> them 1 level deeper. To me, all caps makes it just as obvious that it is
> a special directory, and means that people can find it (it isn't hidden
> by default).
>
>
> This is starting to sound a lot like 'apt for plugins'. And I think
> keeping in mind that we are looking for a remote registry which
> contains references we can update from, means that we can create
> something that does more than just update plugins.
I'm uncomfortable duplicating package managers work. But if people want
to build it I'm not going to stop them. Thinking in that direction
though, a --system option or such to make it available for more than one
user, but writing in a package management controlled dir would meet my
objection.
Wouter van Heyst