← Back to team overview

drizzle-discuss team mailing list archive

Re: Is Drizzle a developers-only project?

 

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 04:46:22PM -0800, Monty Taylor wrote:
> We currently have out of tree plugins building. It works. It's in the
> tree. Done. Yippee.

indeed, Yipee.

> Now- if what you are saying is that we should not move ALL of the
> plugins _OUT_ of the tree, then I agree with that. If it's a plugin and
> it's in the tree, it should stay in the tree. However, there is no valid
> technical reason any more that a person has to actually have the full
> drizzle source code to just compile a plugin- or that a developer needs
> to put their plugin into the trunk for it to be managable to deal
> with.

I think out of tree plugin is a step on the road to being in the tree
- just like most modules are going into Linux Kernel. You run
out-of-tree modules when you absolutely have to, but if you want
quality, you generally don't go near them. Being accepted into
mainline is suitable penguin pee blessing of some level of code quality.

> 
> > We do not have any stable APIs... we have less batshit insane APIs,
> > but they're not stable.
> >
> > As a developer, the question of "where is this used" and "how is this
> > used" should not have to be solved by downloading 1,000 sep tarballs,
> > extracting them and then trying to work out how the heck to compile
> > 1,000 different pieces of software, 500 of which will have borked up
> > autotools and 300 of which won't build on your dev box.
> 
> This is a straw man. The only thing you need to download to work on your
> plugin are drizzle and your plugin. That's two. They're both run by the
> exact same build system, and it isn't borked, because I've already fixed
> it. Show me an actual example in our system of where this is a problem
> and I'll fix it. :)

Not our system, some other developer is going to screw it up. We are,
of course, perfect :)

-- 
Stewart Smith



Follow ups

References