I was wondering why the extensions are only Official or Unsupported. Is there a reason for that?
It's may be possible to organize them like is done for themes
Officially supported theme*
Generally compatible (3rd party)
Partly compatible (3rd party)
Currently not compatible (3rd party)
No longer provided (3rd party)
That red icon beside 3rd party plugin is quite discouraging I suppose, especially for new users of Zenphoto.
Comments
Because we have fewer themes than extensions (40 vs 204 at the moment) we can check them roughly from time to time which is quite easily enabling them and looking for intital errors
Some of the hosted ones we even do maintain roughly which is why those are "generally compatible".
But they won't get all the new features.
We really have no resource to try all the plugins which is much more difficult to try. There for they are either supported or not. Some are that old that they probably don't even work anymore.
There is actually a difference in "unsupported" that is not show. It has three sub categories:
- unsupported plugins on github (plugins we did but choose not to include)
- unsupported misc on githib (other tools that are no real plugins as of above)
Those one are roughly maintained sometimes and are meant as starting points for example.
- unsupported plugins selfhoste (the real 3rd party plugins the authors are responsible of)
(We have also a few dev plugins that are specifically for our use in the github dev repo that are not listed on the site at all).
I agree we probably should at least differ between those like on the themes. I will look at that.
If you like to volunteer to check the last category, feel free...;-)
May be it's possible to involve 3th party developers, still active on their plugins, in maintaining the descriptions updated, giving them some edit rights somewhere in this site, just to tell other people that a plugin is still compatible with current version of Zenphoto. May be you can add a sort of automatic "category downgrade" for the plugins, based on last edit timestamp of their description pages here.
Don't know if this is easily achievable, but I think that it could help the community to grow up, and stimulate external developers to work on it.
If anybody has other ideas and suggestion, please join this discussion.
PS
The orange question mark looks better then the red exclamation mark indeed!
We would really appreciate if you could do some tests on the 3rd party stuff. You can mail me directly if you like (you should see an address on github and we also have adresses on zenphoto.org with the forum user name). Maybe you like to become involved as a kind of chief tester anyway given the recent reports?..:-)
PS
I didn't find your address on GitHub, and your nick at zenphoto.org returned a bad destination mailbox address. Can I try with the address found in your site?
I thought on Github the commit address is public. Anyway, you can use the from my "site" as well.
Sorry, the zenphoto.org one is not the nick but the real name (without surname). Forgot as we have those only for few weeks now.