On Jul 17, 12:18 am, "Christopher Jordan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yeah, I can see where that might be cool, but I still think it may take up > too much of the devs time. Ultimately, though it's up to them if they wanted > to do that sort of thing. I for one wouldn't complain if they did just what > you're suggesting. I trust that they know what they're doing and know how > best to budget their time. :o)
i agree that the plugins should be kept 100% separate from the core development processes, with the possible exception of some "quasi-core plugins" (like the jQuery UI appears to be). The new plugins repo is a good start, IMO. It contains something more or less like a SourceForge release system, but of source specialized for jQ stuff. i especially like that it integrates things like "link to live demo", because that's often the first thing i look for in a plugin. Some potential problems with the new plugin repo include: a) Spambots are gonna figure out how to invade it at some point (probably). b) There are nearly no controls in place to keep a malicious user from "spamming" his plugin all over the place, e.g. by adding it to every category or uploading it via multiple names. c) The alphabetic display of plugins rewards those authors who name their plugins starting with the letter 'A', because those are the first ones which users will see when browsing the list. But overall i like the concept - kinda Freshmeat-meets-SourceForge- meets-jQuery-ish.
