forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cyriaque Dupoirieux <>
Subject Re: review list of scheduled issues for 0.8 release
Date Mon, 15 May 2006 14:27:25 GMT
le 11/05/2006 18:23 Ross Gardler a écrit :
> Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
>> le 11/05/2006 17:27 Ross Gardler a écrit :
>>> Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
>>>> le 11/05/2006 07:34 David Crossley a écrit :
>>>>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>   [SNIP...]
>> FOR-388 <>, 
> That is about using plugins in place. From what I have seen in the 
> commits you have polished my work on enabling them to be deployed if 
> available locally, but they still need to be deployed don't they?
Actually not. They need to be described in a descriptor file, but may 
not have remote URL.
For instance, I am using the php plugin in the Whiteboard which has not 
been released, and I have a descriptor file of my own to describe it.
And it works like a charm. My local plugin is updated when needed from 
my sources.

Shall I close the FOR-388 or do you think it is not enough ?

> ...
>>>> FOR-343 <>...
>>> This one is about automatically upgrading a plugin if no version 
>>> number is supplied. So, if this is to be closed then every time I 
>>> run Forrest I should get the very latest of all required plugins 
>>> that do not carry a version number. From what I have seen, this does 
>>> not happen. It still does what it used to do, if the not present 
>>> then it installs it, if it is present it uses the one available. Did 
>>> I miss something?
>> I am not sure of this, I think that the first time you run forrest, 
>> it gets the and unpack it and keep the zip file.
>> Then the is updated in the vault,
>> If you re-run forrest, it will get the new (get "knows" that the file 
>> is newer by comparing with the kept previous version) and unpack-it.
>> So what have you seen when you say it doesn't happen ? How did you 
>> make the test ?
> This sounds fine. I never thought of keeping the zip and comparing 
> dates. I just assumed that it would reinstall everytime just to ensure 
> that it had the latest.
> Your solution is much neater and more efficient. Of course, it is also 
> too clever for me to realise the excellent work you have done.
May I close the FOR-343 or is there something missing ?

> Thanks a million.
You're welcome (if you're not joking, because I don't think it was too 
clever for you...)
> Ross

View raw message