My main message is that much time ago other people thought about similar
problems, and let's apply well known schemas.
Another solution could be to have a "stable" repository as default in
extenstions.gnome.org and "testing" for extenstions and versions pending
of admission.
This stable/testing wa
On 05/16/2015 12:38 PM, Narcis Garcia wrote:
> About PPA:
> OS distributions have central packages repository; PPA are useful as
> third-party packages and alternatives.
>
> PPAs makes easier to people for publishing software without some of the
> difficulties there are in central repositories. Th
About PPA:
OS distributions have central packages repository; PPA are useful as
third-party packages and alternatives.
PPAs makes easier to people for publishing software without some of the
difficulties there are in central repositories. This "main and secondary
places" allows projects to publish
On 15/05/2015 10:37, rastersoft wrote:
Of course, I know that there still would be need in some cases to use
monkey patching, but trying to reduce its need to only the
really-really-need cases should reduce the review work.
On 15/05/15 10:33, rastersoft wrote:
Hi:
The extension review process
On 05/16/2015 08:33 AM, Narcis Garcia wrote:> El 16/05/15 a les 07:51,
Florian Pelz ha escrit:
>> On 05/15/2015 09:07 AM, Narcis Garcia wrote:
>>> How does Mozilla solve the third-party development of extensions to
>>> manage the addition and updates in addons.mozilla.org ?
>>>
>>> Is it really nec
I was suggesting both cases to give ideas around the problem of checking
all extensions and updates in extensions.gnome.org
El 16/05/15 a les 07:51, Florian Pelz ha escrit:
> On 05/15/2015 09:07 AM, Narcis Garcia wrote:
>> How does Mozilla solve the third-party development of extensions to
>> man
On 05/15/2015 09:07 AM, Narcis Garcia wrote:
> How does Mozilla solve the third-party development of extensions to
> manage the addition and updates in addons.mozilla.org ?
>
> Is it really necessary to be a single website (the official) with the
> only extensions repository? Similar to app.packag
Of course, I know that there still would be need in some cases to use
monkey patching, but trying to reduce its need to only the
really-really-need cases should reduce the review work.
On 15/05/15 10:33, rastersoft wrote:
> Hi:
>> The extension review process is mostly for checking whether the
>>
Hi:
> The extension review process is mostly for checking whether the
> extension is malicious or not ... reviewers are free to check other
> things like code quality, obvious bugs etc. but that depends on the
> reviewer.
Yes, but with a stable API for the most common things, changes in the
intern
How does Mozilla solve the third-party development of extensions to
manage the addition and updates in addons.mozilla.org ?
Is it really necessary to be a single website (the official) with the
only extensions repository? Similar to app.packages, how about the PPA
model apart of main/supported rep
On 15 May 2015 08:23, "drago01" wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Gabriel Rossetti
> wrote:
> >
> > On 15 May 2015 03:32, "Jasper St. Pierre" wrote:
> >>
> >> I would be more than happy to hand off maintenance of the extensions
> >> website to somebody else, get them off the ground wit
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Gabriel Rossetti
wrote:
>
> On 15 May 2015 03:32, "Jasper St. Pierre" wrote:
>>
>> I would be more than happy to hand off maintenance of the extensions
>> website to somebody else, get them off the ground with the code, and answer
>> any questions about the system
On 15 May 2015 03:32, "Jasper St. Pierre" wrote:
>
> I would be more than happy to hand off maintenance of the extensions
website to somebody else, get them off the ground with the code, and answer
any questions about the system. I, personally, do not want to contribute to
extensions infrastructur
I would be more than happy to hand off maintenance of the extensions
website to somebody else, get them off the ground with the code, and answer
any questions about the system. I, personally, do not want to contribute to
extensions infrastructure any more. I would be more than happy to explain
my r
Matthias,
I did not intend to imply anything about others of the team. And I might
have forgotten what his role was officially named. Regardless,
the truth is that regarding extensions, he was the only de facto
responsible and responsive on that matter. And as far as I know, the
website exte
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Vadim wrote:
>
> No, that was the message from the lead maintainer and developer of GS, who
> actually decides what is important for GS, and who, BTW, created the site
> extensions.gnome.org. He also never reviewed extensions himself, unless for
> very early versio
Ok, but I suspect the problem is different: currently, the gnome shell
extensions, as they use monkey patching, must be manually revised,
and, as I understand it, that developer said that HE was tired of
checking code written by other people just to ensure that it didn't do
something nasty. B
Ok, but I suspect the problem is different: currently, the gnome shell
extensions, as they use monkey patching, must be manually revised, and,
as I understand it, that developer said that HE was tired of checking
code written by other people just to ensure that it didn't do something
nasty. But pro
From: rastersoft
Unfortunately, the GS team expressed explicitly the lack of their
interest in further supporting of extensions, and it became more and
more difficult to develop, support and even submit extensions.
What? Can you post a link where they said that? I'm really surprised :O
It
Hi:
On 06/05/15 21:04, Vadim wrote:
> Unfortunately, the GS team expressed explicitly the lack of their
> interest in further supporting of extensions, and it became more and
> more difficult to develop, support and even submit extensions.
What? Can you post a link where they said that? I'm reall
On 06/05/2015 06:58, 邓尧 wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Norman L. Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 21:50 +0800, 邓尧 wrote:
Hi,
I feel it's very inconvenience to use gnome-shell without the YAWL
extension. The extension is only partially functional under 3.12, and
the author has alrea
gt;
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of gnome-shell-list digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Where
Where can I find detailed extension API changes of
gnome-shell 3.12 ? (??)
2. Re: Where can I find detailed extension API changes of
gnome-shell 3.12 ? (Norman L. Smith)
3. Re: Where can I find detailed extension API changes of
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Norman L. Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 21:50 +0800, 邓尧 wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I feel it's very inconvenience to use gnome-shell without the YAWL
>> extension. The extension is only partially functional under 3.12, and
>> the author has already abandoned it.
>>
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 21:50 +0800, 邓尧 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I feel it's very inconvenience to use gnome-shell without the YAWL
> extension. The extension is only partially functional under 3.12, and
> the author has already abandoned it.
> After some extensive Googling with no luck, I decided to fix it
25 matches
Mail list logo
