On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > On 2/5/13 9:00 AM, James Peach wrote: >> On Feb 5, 2013, at 5:41 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> b) would be my preference. >>>> Mine too ;) >>>> >>>> I think the move towards --enable-experimental-plugins on the buildbots >>>> might >>>> give you exactly that: People owning up to (their?) code, fixing broken >>>> builds >>>> or at the very least filing tickets. >>> Except the buildbots would be broken indefinitely unless you do option d). >>> You simply won't get several if these plugins to compile and run without >>> very significant amount of work. Or lots of ifdef's :) >> I think that most of the plugins that need that kind of work are not even >> built when the option is enabled ... >> > > > Ah, so we already have d) in place then. There ought to be some (simple) ways > for someone who wants to fix these broken plugins to build them as well, no?
That part is missing. If someone wants to resuscitate one of the plugins that are not enabled with --enable-experimental-plugins, the buildbots are the only infrastructure we have to help them get it building across our supported platforms. J
