[schooltool-dev] Re: General Enthusiasm and Questions for SchoolTool 2007 Release

[Tom Hoffman]

On 5/8/07, Brian Sutherland <jinty at web.de> wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 04:13:10PM -0400, Tom Hoffman wrote:
> >  On 5/7/07, David Welsh <rdavidw at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 3) Is CanDo becoming an integrated part of the regular SchoolTool package,
> > > or will it remain its own special package???
> >
> >  We're definitely not going to have CanDo using its own fork of
> >  SchoolTool, as we've had in the past.
> >
> >  It seems most likely that we'll have CanDo as a SchoolTool "plugin"
> >  and a separate package, although it is still unclear exactly how that
> >  will work.  These questions are still in flux, and we spent a lot of
> >  time today discussing how they might play out.
> >
> >  Basically, as I understand it, we could spend a lot of time over the
> >  next few months trying to really get a clean system for separating out
> >  various parts of SchoolTool as plugins on a minimal base system, but
> >  then we're unlikely to actually get the user functionality we're
> >  shooting for done on time.  On the other hand, it would be nice to do
> >  that first since if we move parts out of core in the future the
> >  application will be somewhat more painful to upgrade.
> >
> >  I would be comfortable moving more of CanDo into the core, but ignas
> >  and jinty better understand the technical issues.
>
> I think there is a big difference between "core" and "default installed"
> packages. Let me try some definitions:
>
> Core:
>     The absolute minimum you need to get a SchoolTool server running
>     which can be extended.
>
> Default Installed:
>     The set of things you get by default when you ask a packaging system
>     "Give me SchoolTool".
>
> So, by these definitions, CanDo is not and probably will never be
> "core". But having cando installed when someone runs
> "apt-get install schooltool" is definitely something that can be done in
> the future.

+1

--Tom