Re: 3.6 Feature Proposal: Extension Hook Support and Updates

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 03:54 -0400, Jasper St. Pierre wrote:

> As for the "Extension Hook Support", I want to get consensus of a
> policy that we won't reject a patch that allows an otherwise
> tricky/dirty/impossible hook into the Shell or Mutter for extensions
> use, after passing the standard code policy purposes. I've seen a few
> patches rejected because "we don't support extensions", but I'd like
> to change that.

This is great news!  I'm sure it will help clean up code which is too
"tight" to let an extension be implemented cleanly.

(In a way, I like thinking of some extensions as the correct answer to,
"but we don't want two code paths and a preference".  It helps keep
everyone responsible for the way they want things to work, instead of
burdening the maintainer with everything for everyone.)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]