Re: [BuildStream] [Proposal] Plugin fragmentation / Treating Plugins as Sources

[Laurence Urhegyi <laurence urhegyi codethink co uk>]

I would change some things, but it's up to you. Some simple typos too.

On 2019-04-16 16:17, William Salmon wrote:
> Indeed, it is very long. I am very interested in this topic and have
> tried to engage with this thread several times. But I have struggled
> to keep track of the thread and I must confess to not really
> understanding the details of your proposal. It is not only myself that
> dose not have the capacity for this email. Other reply seems to have
> said a similar thing.

You mentioned last time that this puts people off. That's a very 
important point (although separate to this thread, it's one to raise, I 
think).

> Before this thread got too technical I would like to have had a
> opportunity to have joined the architectural discussion.
>
> From my perspective, as a user of may open source projects, I do not
> expect my OS to give me cutting edge versions of programs and I really
> don't expect it to have multiple versions of the same software so I am
> really confused as to why build stream is trying so hard to go so far
> above and bond when we have plenty of big challenges already.

Simple typo on 'may' - should be 'many'

also say 'above and beyond' not 'bond'

> As a user of buildstream at work and occasionally at home I have been
> running bst 1.2 and bst master side by side for different projects for
> months in separate venv's.
>
> I have found this very easy to set up, and use. But I am very familiar
> with python, (maybe not by this groups standards but certainly by our
> I have target users standers)

I would leave off this bit in brackets. you are an expert, i've told you 
this :)

> When I contrast this to other opensource projects, even those with
> sponsorship and a supportive user base that I have used personally,
> were trying out master close to the release  date requires compiling
> them for a hour or two i think the venv model works really well.

Please name drop said project, that will add more weight.

> For people who really want to have a system wide bst 1.2 and master
> then there are other solutions like docker or vm's that also work
> well.
>
> From my perspective I think getting bst2 to be great so that we don't
> have to support a long transition would be a much better model, we
> already have loads of great features and some more on the way, we have
> had a fair delay since 1.2 so we are not messing our users about too
> regularly.
>
> Getting bst2 really good might need us to change the plugin model but
> I have really struggled to follow the discussions that far.

not sure about this last sentence. what's the intention?

will chat f2f