Re: [Ranger-users] ranger infrastructure

[Joshua Landau]

On 26 April 2013 12:44, Roman Z. <address@hidden> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:45:32PM +0100, Joshua Landau wrote:

> Gah! This is too many!
>
> For Savannah, I would abandon all but the mailing list and all the homepage
> pages, as they are the only pages I've found useful and non-redundant.This,
> however, depends on real usage statistics and not *my* usage statistics.

I don't record any statistics D=

I will thus, having nothing to prove to the contrary, claim I therefore hold the One Objective Opinion.

 

> Savannah hasn't proven popular so far and I really don't like the
> interface, plus a bug tracker really isn't a good Q&A place.

So, I'm not the only one who finds savannah's interface uncomfortable.

We can be discomfort pals!

 

> @Mantas
> > Read the Docs [1] for documentation.
>
> Ooh, that looks nice.
>
> To be fair, I've only just realised that "1?" and co. still work since we
> changed help page styles, so my primary point is that I think we need
> hyperlinked pages in the inbuilt help. However, if we want to go full blown
> it will look quite pro. I just don't know if we have enough manpage
> material for Read the Docs.

Why does everybody hate man pages?

I don't. There are, however, two missing features with the current setup and proposals:

1) Pressing "?" should first bring you to an index, if my experience of not realising the existence of "1?" and co. is not unique. The man page could even be shown below the index on the assumption that you'd prefer to go straight there.

2) Online man pages are lame. Read the Docs would be much nicer - but, again, there isn't really enough content yet.

 

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 08:04:09AM +0200, Miodrag Milic wrote:
> Redmine is great, I use it exclusively to manage 10+ projects each
> including bunch of programmers.

 

I will trust your experience, then. Y'all seem to like it, so who am I to argue?

 

> > 3. What would be a good system for publishing plugins and patches?
>

> Well, you know what I'm going to suggest again ;). Package... MANAGER! An
> online directory where people can post and pull packages (under admin
> supervision, I guess) should be sufficient then.

I'm still not convinced a package manager is a good idea, but I'm going
to think about it.  Maybe in the way that miodrag described it.

> Perhaps plugins could be maintained just the way they are done on redmine
> itself: http://www.redmine.org/plugins. Plugins itself are on github and
> portal serves for discovery.

Decent idea (until someone writes Popen("rm -rf /") in their plugins :D)
I'll consider this once some plugin exist.

No, see, no-one's going to write plugins until there's plug-in compatibility. If you've a package manager, that'll take the role of turning commands, themes and hacks into plugins. This needs to be done first, I think. That said, the package manager doesn't need to be built in - it's a plugin on Sublime Text and I'd be totally happy with it being a plugin for Ranger too.

I also think that centralisation can help protect against maliciousness as you can have approval of the masses, and most of the plugins will be really short. Like, using my previous example, how :travel could've been a plugin before :scout. This can genuinely just be a directory with a number of admins and a public upload function. Maybe there can be an "approved" tier and a "pre-approval" tier so there's no lag while waiting for admins. They can be folders. You can even browse the extension codes manually if you so wished.

I really don't think that this has to be complicated, and Sublime Text's package manager is consistently viewed with very high approval from the community.

In regards to implementation, git is a bit more than we need, in a sense. Plugins for Ranger will almost always be single files - I wouldn't object to that even being a limit. There's no real reason to touch bookmarks, history, rc.d, rifle.conf or tagged, and if you want to change up scope.sh I'm not sure an extension is really appropriate. It's not python, dude.

A great advantage of a single (or "approved" and "pre-approved") directory of text files (or folders of dated text files) is that it's easy, in all ways.