Kodi Community Forum

(2016-10-20, 17:47)DarrenHill Wrote: [ -> ]The Team Kodi goal is to have as many add-ons which are acceptable under the rules as possible in the official repo.

So basicaly it comes down to "we don't want any competition"?

That's a bunch of BS and you know it. The proposed repo had a rule against add-ons that could be included in the Kodi.tv repo (with rare exceptions such as robs, which is now a moot point). It was going to be for things like the Emby and Plex add-ons, as well as skin mods.

Even if that wasn't the case, this was all in the idea stage. It did not exist yet, and that thread didn't break any rules. Why wasn't this brought up there?

(2016-10-20, 21:27)DarrenHill Wrote: [ -> ]They are very limited, small and self contained. Their scope and audience is much smaller and more limited than what is under proposal here.

The crossover and clash with the official repo I'd much less than a general catch all repo.

I guess I was the only one paying attention, because the scope of the other repo was pretty damn small. The number of possibly included add-ons is now less than five now that rob's add-ons can't be discussed on the forum (not including skin mods).

Ask them (I know you're just the messenger here, I'm not mad at you) if they even know what the scope is of my repo? It sure as heck isn't "catch-all". I specifically pointed that out in the previous thread.

(2016-10-20, 19:14)DarrenHill Wrote: [ -> ]1) There shouldn't be. Here I'm not including"themed" ones like language specific ones that wouldn't be of general forum interest.

Maybe there shouldn't be, but there is. I am not talking about language specific or "themed" repos. But that brings me to another point/question. You stated that the themed repos "wouldn't be of general forum interest"...so what you are saying is you don't want a "catch-all" repo that is interesting to a large group of people, but they are allowed otherwise?

(2016-10-20, 19:14)DarrenHill Wrote: [ -> ]2) I think you misunderstand me a little (or I didn't put it clearly enough). Whilst a repo should have one principle maintainer who is responsible for it, there would be no issue with other developers collaboratively having inputs to add-ons in the repo. It's when they are used to just host otherwise unrelated add-ons from other developers that problems can come. In that case a seperate repo would be required, with the author as maintainer.

So let me use some examples to make sure I understand...
a) I maintain an add-on and include it in the official repo <-- This is obviously allowed
b) I maintain an add-on by myself and have it in a repo <-- This is allowed
c) A couple of friends (lets call them "A" and "B") and I contribute to the same add-on and I maintain the repo <-- This is allowed
d) Friend "A" and I contribute to one add-on, I have an add-on that only I contribute to and friend "B" has an add-on that only she contributes to. All three of these are in the same repo. <-- This is NOT allowed?

I really am not trying to be argumentative, however I feel that this "NEW" rule needs to be explained in detail or else it is going to cause problems.

(2016-10-20, 21:47)DaLanik Wrote: [ -> ]

(2016-10-20, 17:47)DarrenHill Wrote: [ -> ]The Team Kodi goal is to have as many add-ons which are acceptable under the rules as possible in the official repo.

So basicaly it comes down to "we don't want any competition"?

dafuq?

dude. stay on topic or gtfo

(2016-10-20, 22:25)stefansaraev Wrote: [ -> ]

(2016-10-20, 21:47)DaLanik Wrote: [ -> ]

(2016-10-20, 17:47)DarrenHill Wrote: [ -> ]The Team Kodi goal is to have as many add-ons which are acceptable under the rules as possible in the official repo.

So basicaly it comes down to "we don't want any competition"?

dafuq?

dude. stay on topic or gtfo

That's very much on topic, and pretty much on the nose.

Consider the matter closed. Your forum, your rules.

with all due respect, ned, no it is not. some (if not most) people here give no single f**k about competition and conspiracy theories. having as many addons as possible which are acceptable under the rules has nothing to do with competition.

(2016-10-20, 22:27)Ned Scott Wrote: [ -> ]Consider the matter closed.

Thread marked solved.

and closing before the swearing gets out of hand.