Add-on review times at ATN

Ryan Sipes ryan at
Tue Mar 19 17:02:32 UTC 2019

On 3/19/19 10:28 AM, Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 18/03/2019 12:51, Jörg Knobloch wrote:
>> On 18/03/2019 13:36, Onno Ekker wrote:
>>> As a reviewer I'm always hesitant about reviewing a cloned add-on
>>> that fixes compatibility issues. There's a pletora of add-ons in the
>>> queue like ...2, ...Improved, ......Continued, ...Updated,
>>> Some of the original add-ons have been updated, so the clone isn't
>>> needed anymore.
>>> In other cases the clone might be needed/ or useful, but it would be
>>> better if the new add-on author would have contacted the original
>>> one and see if he could also get access to the add-on on ATN.
>> I'm all in favour of discouraging yet another clone.
> Isn't one of the signs of a healthy open source ecosystem plenty of
> forking?
> Shouldn't we be *pleased* that people want to contribute to the
> ecosystem, rather than being unhappy about the way that they have done
> it? :-)
I agree. We should be encouraging this. Naming is tough as you want it
to be clear that it isn't the same project by the same person. Perhaps
we should define rules for naming being too similar except in certain
cases (for instance, if the add-on that is being forked has not been
updated for X amount of versions.

Just thinking out loud.


Ryan Sipes
Community Manager

More information about the tb-planning mailing list