> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 07:27:05AM +0000, Chris Caldwell wrote: > > Looks like the upstream's an orphaned project (no commits for 6 months) and > > won't be updated for RT 4.2.
Although it's true that upstream seems to have abandoned the project, work had already begun to update the plugin to 4.2, see branch 3.2/support-4.2 [1] > > Is this a good place to suggest Best Practical's own RT::Extension::Assets > > (http://bestpractical.com/assets) as a candidate for packaging? The recommended pratice is to submit an RFP [2]. > It's as good as any. Unfortunately I think it is now too late to get > a new package into jessie. One interesting question is if there is > any sane data migration strategy between the two: that might affect > the immediate value of packaging RT::Extension::Assets. To my knowledge there is no migration path between the two. I think Debian users of this extension would be best served at this time by packaging the 4.2 branch and publishing it in the experimental archive. I've been using it for a bit and although there are a couple of bugs, it works well enough that the data is still useable, which IMHO is an acceptable temporary option before BestPractical or someone else decides to write code to migrate data between the two extensions. Thanks, -- Jerome [1] https://github.com/AssetTracker/rt-extension-assettracker/tree/3.2/support-rt-4.2 [2] https://wiki.debian.org/RFP
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
