[OOTB-addons] Ways to help the ADDONS committee
bwavell at ziaconsulting.com
Mon May 4 20:40:39 BST 2015
Tahir, there is an old crappy version of the Bulk Filesystem Import Tool
that was included in 4.0. The version available from googlecode/github is
quite a bit better. I'm sure the 2.0 version will be even better than that.
The addon version uses different URIs than the embedded version so they can
both be deployed without conflict. We use this and JS Console on almost
every one of our projects. As such to me it is extremely valuable.
Interesting question about reviewing Alfresco developed addons. I think if
they meet the other criteria we should consider reviewing them. Although I
hope that part of prioritizing things in our backlog has to do with some
general sense of how useful an addon will be for the majority of
-- Bindu Wavell <bindu at ziaconsulting.com>
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Tahir Malik <tahir.malik at contezza.nl> wrote:
> I guess the bulk file system is halfly embedded in Alfresco.
> I've been working on version 2.0 with Peter and Jérémie. This version will
> be included in a version 5 Alfresco someday. So sure we can include it, but
> I'm not sure we should be testing Alfresco's source code.
> Best regards,
> Tahir Shazad Malik
> From: Bindu Wavell <bwavell at ziaconsulting.com>
> Sent: 04/05/2015 16:28
> To: Axel Faust <axel.faust at prodyna.com>
> Cc: Bindu Wavell (bindu at ziaconsulting.com) <bindu at ziaconsulting.com>;
> ootb-addons at xtreamlab.net
> Subject: Re: [OOTB-addons] Ways to help the ADDONS committee
> Hi Axel,
> I read through the criteria. Mostly it makes a lot of sense to me.
> However, there were a few criteria I didn't understand.
> How about if I pull together some questions about these and then once I
> have clarity, I update the docs?
> In many cases, I was thinking examples of good and bad things might be
> helpful, so I could put some work into that as well.
> In any case, once I have clarity on all of the criteria, I'd be up for
> running through the process with some addons.
> I didn't see the bulk file system import tool in the list. Has that been
> disqualified for some reason?
> -- Bindu
> On May 4, 2015, at 7:11 AM, Axel Faust <axel.faust at prodyna.com> wrote:
> Hello Bindu,
> sorry that it took some time to react to your tweet (
> https://twitter.com/binduwavell/status/594324977953812480) inquiring
> about ways to support the ADDONS committee.
> Apart from any new ideas / suggestions you might want to bring to the
> group, the current focus is on the following activities:
> · Review and refine the criteria catalog for addon reviews
> o Overview:
> o Non-technical criteria in a bit more detail:
> o Technical criteria in a bit more detail:
> o The current state was intended as a draft, but so far, no significant
> changes have been proposed – it can be considered the current agreed-upon
> version at this point.
> · Select and review individual addons from the Alfresco community
> o Aggregated list of addons submitted for review or selected by
> committee members:
> o Reports of completed reviews:
> · Identify automation potential in addon review process and
> suggest potential tooling support (existing or to be developed)
> I would very much like for someone else to take on one or two addons to
> review based on the current criteria catalog. First of all, this should
> help better gauge the effort required for a review (to reduce fear of time
> commitment for other contributors) as well as provide valuable feedback for
> refining/validating the criteria catalog itself.
> But most import of all: It shows that both the Order of the Bee and this
> committee are actually doing something / getting traction. Momentum (or
> lack thereof) is one of our main challenges at the moment in my point of
> view. I aim to do one addon review per month but due to my current project,
> I’ve already failed this in April after the first two reviews.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OOTB-addons