On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 05:09:35PM -0400, Jerome Charaoui wrote: > > 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].
That's #783213. The basic packaging is done[1], but I haven't managed to get the database schema manipulation during installs done for a long time now. I plan to use the Assets extension at some point soon though, so will try and get it done. > > 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. This sounds like a reasonable idea, although we would definitely want to flag that it's not recommended for new installs. [1] <http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-request-tracker/rt-extension-assets.git> Dominic.
