[Bstrdsmkr]

I have several addons I've contemplated submitting to the official repo, probably the most relevant is Waldo. I've been busy lately and haven't much time for my hobbies so Waldo remains unfinished, but I intend to use metahandlers to provide the metadata for it.

The main reason I haven't submitted it is out of respect for Team-XBMC. I didn't want people to be confused by the difference between my personal repo and the official repo. If you're saying it's more important to have a library be used by something in repo, then I'm more than happy to polish it up a bit and submit it along with the others, but I simply hadn't considered this a priority. Is there a reason you're trying to pump up the addon count? If so, I'm sure we can help out.

Just because we have different views on politics doesn't mean we can't help out with other stuff if you guys have a goal to accomplish; just let us know. After all, we all share the same hobby.

[Eldorado]

I do appreciate your position, I don't disagree that it could be used with addons that would fit with our rules. If you can find someone using it that is inline with our rules and can convince them to put it in our repo, then it will give you a much better position.....

Your argument isn't helped by the addons you mention in your first post. Of the four addons you mention, i think only one of them could pass our forum rules at the moment.

- Popcornflix - I think this is hosted on one of the sites we don't support here, potentially looking at it may be legal content.
- Docu-Hub - I think this is hosted on one of the sites we don't support here, is unclear where content is sourced from
- Filmi By Nature - looks like illegal content, likely to be removed
- TV on Desi Zone - looks like illegal content, likely to be removed

I'm not 100% sure as i haven't had time to checked in full yet, but i do not believe ajays plugins access legal content. I think they pull content from youtube, dailymotion and other legal sites, however they also pull content from other non-legal sources. The non-legal sources taint the addon which means they cannot be supported here.

Sorry I had assumed they were legit sites, just from a first glance look.. and typically pirate sites are not on .com or .net url's

Yes the first 2 addons are done by a dev who makes his home at one of the other sites, though his choice of home shouldn't determine whether the addon is valid or not

I guess my next question is what is the benefit of removing it? Are you negatively impacted in any way?

Are there any others that you guys are looking to remove?

I guess I will have to hurry up with my in-progress addon then...

[amet]

we get 1 million hits and no addon we host uses it, "the other site" sends us all the traffic and we are expected to just have the bandwidth and resources… we have the bandwidth but its more of a cleanup mission than anything else.

why should we host it for hub and others? why don't they do it?

[nickr]

Yes but on the other hand traffic could be coming via legit addons that simply aren't in the xbmc repo for one reason or another - still being developed, dev too busy to go through the rigmarole of getting into repo etc.

A cynic would think this was part of a process which will end with xbmc only being able to used 'sanctioned' addons approved by team xbmc and in the 'official' repo.

[amet]

you probably have a valid point there….

EDIT: valid point on first part , second part is just not realistic in an open source. anyone can host that addon(or any other addon). unless we start adding if addon.ID == "*hub" then {"rm -rf /"}; you are pretty safe to run anything you like.

[Martijn]

dev too busy to go through the rigmarole of getting into repo etc.

takes about 5 minutes to request it being added (excluding time if there are any remarks of course)
once already in maybe 1 minute

[Bstrdsmkr]

dev too busy to go through the rigmarole of getting into repo etc.

takes about 5 minutes to request it being added (excluding time if there are any remarks of course)
once already in maybe 1 minute

I must respectfully disagree, considering the 10 page stickied thread about why people aren't submitting their addons to the official repo

[Martijn]

I did.

This was a comment about them being to busy. Not because they don't want to. There's a difference.

And of those 10 pages it was mostly a discussion what could be improved (and which some already have) or what not so dragging that in here has no real meaning.

[Bstrdsmkr]

I did.

This was a comment about them being to busy. Not because they don't want to. There's a difference.

And of those 10 pages it was mostly a discussion what could be improved (and which some already have) or what not so dragging that in here has no real meaning.

nikr's post mentioned that devs may be too busy to "go through the rigamarole of getting it into the repo," implying that it's an issue of convenience.
Your response was that it takes 5 minutes or less to request the addition -- implying that it is NOT in fact inconvenient.

Below are the list of reasons -- added by you -- to the first post in that thread:

*Not knowing you could submit
*Having to maintain separate versions for each XBMC release if code changed between versions
*Not allowed to contain binary files
*Submission process by email
*No Beta/Testing repo
*No Bug Tracking System
*No good rating / usage stats
*Devs find pushing to own repo is much faster / easier to update their addon instead of doing it to official repo.
*don't want a code review
*once a month submission too restrictive

All of these, save maybe 3 are issues of convenience. Again, I must disagree with your analysis of the situation and insist that a list of reasons creators are not including their content in your repo DOES have meaning when discussing whether or not to remove a library used my literally millions of people for the sake of cleanup under the flag of it not being used in repo.

[Karnagious]

It would be good to hear an acknowledgement that removing the module would adversely affect tens of thousands of users.

Many of those people would not use XBMC if they werent also using the non-repo addons.

[amet]

It would be good to hear an acknowledgement that removing the module would adversely affect tens of thousands of users.

Many of those people would not use XBMC if they werent also using the non-repo addons.

ack, we know it will .. speak to 3rd party repos to include it

[Eldorado]

we get 1 million hits and no addon we host uses it, "the other site" sends us all the traffic and we are expected to just have the bandwidth and resources… we have the bandwidth but its more of a cleanup mission than anything else.

why should we host it for hub and others? why don't they do it?

Why do you even mention the hub here? Why do you instantly connect it with one specific site?

If you have followed along, my point is that it's used by many other addons and given proper exposure could be used by many more, this has nothing to do with any sites or groups and shouldn't even be apart of the discussion... the fact that it's been brought up now makes me again question the motives at play here

The lack of exposure is a failure on my part, it does need more and I need help maintaining

This has to do with making a useful module available to all developers, and it has been found by dev's that don't belong at any of the 3rd party sites, but by dev's who call this forum home

The fact that they wish not to push their addons into your repo should not hurt shared modules such as this one

This would be akin to removing a module such as (random example) elementtree, let's say none of the addons in your repo are currently using it, maybe they just don't have a current use for it, maybe they are using their own variation, but you are tracking thousands of downloads on it every month... obviously there are addon dev's out there who are using it

So if it's not having a negative impact on your servers, why would you remove it? What exactly are you 'cleaning up'? Who are you helping exactly?

Would it not be in your best interest to have available to addon dev's a wide collection of scripts to help them create new and better addons?

Why would you shutter something (as you have to admit) as useful as a meta data scraper for addons?

[Karnagious]

It would be good to hear an acknowledgement that removing the module would adversely affect tens of thousands of users.

Many of those people would not use XBMC if they werent also using the non-repo addons.

ack, we know it will .. speak to 3rd party repos to include it

What does this statement reveal? That you consider the reduced user experience to be worth less than the cost of keeping the module in the repo.

And this is where we hit a problem.

Most people wouldn't consider the cost of keeping it in the repo to be very high and so now, by inference, they reckon that the value you are placing on that user experience to be even lower.

If you disagree and think you place a higher value of the loss of user experience than people would assume, then you may need to consider having another go at explaining where their expectations of the cost of maintenance are too low.

[jmarshall]

I'm not a repository maintainer, so consider that I have no sway whatsoever in this matter - thus, this is my opinion only, and the repository maintainers are free to ignore it as they wish.

Personally I don't know why this was even brought up.

The add-on by itself is useful and doesn't break the rules.

If it's in the official repository and no other add-on in the official repository is using it, then clearly the author needs to be doing a better job of marketing the fact that it's there to those add-ons in the official repository that might benefit from it.

I don't see what advantages there is from removing it, and only see a shitload of disadvantages.

Cheers,
Jonathan

[nickr]

I'm not a repository maintainer, so consider that I have no sway whatsoever in this matter - thus, this is my opinion only, and the repository maintainers are free to ignore it as they wish.

Personally I don't know why this was even brought up.

The add-on by itself is useful and doesn't break the rules.

If it's in the official repository and no other add-on in the official repository is using it, then clearly the author needs to be doing a better job of marketing the fact that it's there to those add-ons in the official repository that might benefit from it.

I don't see what advantages there is from removing it, and only see a shitload of disadvantages.

Cheers,
Jonathan

Plus 1