The problem is that it makes us accountable for every plugin, and I definitely don't want that. It's great to see Dancer as an ecosystem but we can't account for all plugins, their changes, their authors, their design, and their problems. We would need to keep our documentation up-to-date on all plugins and I'm not sure that's a good idea. I think racke's suggestion of providing a place to list plugin information (such as "we know these exist" or perhaps "the following are known to work on the latest version", etc.) but this has been proven difficult to maintain. Hell, the module we used to check whether plugins started having problems at some point too. While I understand the desire, I'm not sure it's something we can and should be doing. (not that I'm saying no, I'm simply raising the problem with it because I don't know what to do with it yet.) On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Stefan Hornburg (Racke) <racke@linuxia.de> wrote:
On 12/14/2014 04:19 PM, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Sawyer X <xsawyerx@gmail.com <mailto:
xsawyerx@gmail.com>> wrote:
This shouldn't be in the migration document since it isn't Dancer
core, it's just a plugin API change. The plugin should indicate it.
Ostensibly you are right, but as a user I view the whole Dancer
ecosystem as a single thing and
I'd certainly appreciate if I had all the information in one place when I start to upgrade.
Gabor
Yeah, I agree to that. This can go into the Plugin section. At least we should include links to plugins which additional migration information.
Regards Racke
-- Modern Perl, Dancer and eCommerce consulting. _______________________________________________ dancer-users mailing list dancer-users@dancer.pm http://lists.preshweb.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dancer-users