Re: [Ranger-users] ranger infrastructure

[Joshua Landau]

On 30 April 2013 02:13, Paul Ivanov <address@hidden> wrote:

Joshua Landau, on 2013-04-25 21:45,  wrote:
> You are right to think a Q&A system could replace the One True
> Thread and I think it could help clear out the other issue
> trackers.

What about letting one emerge organically - just send people to a
StackOverflow tags of "ranger, python" - and start posting a few
seed question there. Then more people using SO and searching for
python tag will come across ranger - SO comes up high in search
results, and if the question that's being asked is
python-oriented anyway (their stack trace is clear to a python
coder, even though the user posting might now know what it
means), then you'll get folks pitching in that way, as well.

I realize that a decentralized service has its advantages over a
solution that's not under one's control - but there are benefits
to leveraging a site that already has a large mindshare for all
things Q&A....

I'm, with hut on this one - although maybe for a different reason. Personally a pragmatic view would focus on the hardest task: moving people. If it's centralised inside hut's control it will be a lot easier. I also don't think SO has that much more Ranger experience that would benefit us, nor would I think of it when googling. With something centralised I'd think -- "Oohh! Official Q&A SO-style!" and jump straight in.

I also don't really know if these issues would be helped from people who just know Python, too. It seems a bit unduly optimistic.

 

> > 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.

Given that Ranger is a python program - I don't see any reason
why there shouldn't be a documented Plugin API that would allow
other ranger plugins to register themselves. Then, publishing a
plugin can be done by posting it on PyPI, and installing can work
using the standard python tools (pip or easy_install).

Gee, that's making it hard. Also, I think PyPI isn't a valid place for these (not sure, but they do say packages for _python_ and not _python packages_) and pip/easy_install seems like a ton of work compared to what I've proposed.