Open Jermolene opened 1 month ago
I think, that the full description of the plugin-history should be part of a demo-edition.
The plugin itself should only contain the minimal changelog-info. Over time there may be plugins, where the history is much longer than the plugin code itself.
I personally consider this a waste of space.
eg: My custom-markup plugin has a long list of history. The plugin itself only contains the latest 2 or 3 points and a link to the full history on the demo page.
Part of the plugin
Part of the Demo Page
I think, that the full description of the plugin-history should be part of a demo-edition.
The plugin itself should only contain the minimal changelog-info. Over time there may be plugins, where the history is much longer than the plugin code itself.
With the scheme I outlined it is entirely up to the plugin publisher how much information they retain.
With the scheme I outlined it is entirely up to the plugin publisher how much information they retain.
That's right. But I was thinking about core plugins. We should also try to keep it minimalistic
Hi @pmario generally I do not share your concern about wasting space. When and if we encounter the problem where a core plugin has overly length release notes we can consider policies for dealing with it.
It is proposed that plugins whose stability level is "experimental" be allowed to follow their own release schedule, with releases going to production as soon as they are ready.
There are a few changes that will need to be coordinated to make this happen:
For the release notes, the tiddler
$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/pluginname/changelog
would be a data dictionary mapping version numbers to a brief description of the release of the form2024-08-24 Description of this update
. If plugins wish to add more documentation about a release they can use tiddlers incorporating the version number of the form$:/plugins/tiddlywiki/pluginname/changelog/v1.0.0
that would contain the full description of the release.