[SPAM] RE: [Qgis-user] Public Repository for plugins...

[Sampson, David]

 I don't want to speak on behalf of the community, I just came across what I figured would work for the central repo and kinda matches typical; open source projects that facilitate the three options.

Cheers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: qgis-user-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> [mailto:qgis-user-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Borys Jurgiel
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 09:44
> To: qgis-user at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: [Qgis-user] Public Repository for plugins...
> 
> Tuesday 16 of June 2009 15:03:11 Sampson, David napisał(a):
> > 
> >  Just as I am going through a pseudo code exercise of  release.py I 
> > see three
> cases.
> > 
> > 1. Current and previous stable versions			
> 	VERSION
> > 2. A Beta version is is being tested an on its way to 
> stable.	BETA
> > 3. An unstable snapshot of the development trunk		
> 	ALPHA
> > 
> > If we assume that most new feature development is done in 
> the branches 
> > and
> merged to trunk, then trunk should not be all the harry and 
> trashy. The branches would be way to unstable.
> > 
> > This way then regular users can try unstable and beta 
> version of the 
> > plugins
> wihtout needing to get into SVN carnage.
> > 
> > For now I will call trunk snapshots BETA
> > 
> > Just some thoughts.
> 
> So do we want to have three levels? The present 
> "experimental" tagging style is related to the fact that many 
> authors just release either plugins considerable as stable, 
> or just some concepts. But if we are going to develop more 
> complicated plugins (and it seems we are), there is a reason 
> to do more precise tagging, of course
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-user mailing list
> Qgis-user at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user
>