On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Carlos Soriano Sánchez <carlos soriano89 gmail com> wrote:
Sriram, Still, that's more work for developers, who already seems to be working on something else more important upstream. At the end, what we need is someone to go trough commits and make a list of important changes before a release. Not sure who be willing to do so, although Drago did it last release, I don't know how time consuming was to do it.
Is this actually something that can be achieved for all extension
developers? The way it can hack into the code surely means that any
change could break an extension.
For example, my extension, when updating to a new version, I've had most
of the shell overlay change out from under me, and it took me days or
weeks to hack back in to the new code to get my extension running.
Another time, my extension only broke due to a single attribute in the
shell being renamed to not have a preceding '_'.
I've also had to copy and paste several full functions from the shell
code so that I can change a line or add a couple of other lines, so if
any of these functions change, I need to copy the new version.
Maybe this is not the type of extension that is targeted by this effort,
would these changes likely help other extension developers?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part