I added a new tag to this question of mine: How to add a file to download into Jenkins/Hudson plugin

I also created a short wiki entry for it (which needs review before being generally visible).

The problem I am trying to solve, which is very relevant for my use of SO, is separating the multitude of Jenkins/Hudson use questions from the fewer Jenkins/Hudson plugin programming questions, but I think same applies to any SW development related software, which allows custom plugins, and where both use and new development are on topic at SO.

What do you think, is this a good tag?

To clarify: this problem is specific to programming tool plugins:

  • both tool use and plugin programming are on topic at SO
  • by very nature of using vs. developing and number of tool users vs. number of plugin developers, use questions overwhelmingly outnumber programming questions
  • the programming questions are often very specialized, specific to the tool framework

Edit after 1st answer:

Since this smells of a meta-tag, what would be the alternative approach? I'm not especially interested in large majority of the questions about Jenkins/Hudson, as they are usage questions. I also bet large majority of people interested in these usage issues are not interested in intricacies of Jenkins/Hudson plugin development.

So if this tag is too "meta", what would you suggest as solution to my problem?

Also, if this tag gets general approval, I'd like to clarify and that they are specifically about using plugins in a Jenkins/Hudson CI system: finding plugins for some purpose, configuring plugins, solving problems with plugins not working right.

Update: well, tag was apparently removed by @Charles with extremely informative edit message "edited tags", which I take to mean, these plugin programming questions are a poor fit for SO QA format, which is unable to distinguish concepts of using programming tools and developing plugins for programming tools.

Alternative suggestions:

  1. Change tags and to be exclusively about plugin development. I guess this means editing the wiki entries, going through old questions to re-tag them, and then keeping an eye on new questions and re-tagging them as needed. I'm a volunteer obviously, if there is strong enough agreement that this is the right way.

  2. Introduce tags and to be about programming related questions (inspired by answer of Stephan Branczyk below).

  • 2
    "edited tags" is the default message used when you click the inline "edit tags" link. Charles has a tendency to remove all newly added tags that don't fit his fancy. He doesn't necessarily bother to check Meta first to see if there's a [discussion] question opened about it. I would agree that's frustrating. – Cody Gray Apr 7 '13 at 10:32
  • Yeah, usually I don't leave an edit message when it's an obviously horrible tag. plugin-programming is so amazingly generic that there's simply no way that it'd ever stand on its own. The best way to keep a tag alive is to pick a tag name that isn't generic, that can stand completely by itself on a question if needed, and to go back and add it to a bunch of older questions. – Charles Apr 8 '13 at 2:10
  • @Charles Maybe "too generic" for a new tag at this time, I'm not arguing that, but I'd leave obviously horrible hyperbole like " amazingly generic " for tags like file, database, inheritance, download and so on and so forth. Also, if a new tag you are removing has a wiki entry added, and there is a good way to leave a comment (by commenting a post with that tag, or simply writing a custom edit message), I'd reconsider your policy of just silently deleting content created and reviewed by others (the wiki entry), because that's just uncivilized. – hyde Apr 8 '13 at 5:54
  • The mere act of putting effort into something doesn't justify the existence of the thing. Plenty of effort is put into things that aren't a good fit for SO, and a tag named plugin-programming is one of them. – Charles Apr 8 '13 at 6:04
  • @Charles I did not say deletion itself was really a problem (I mean, that's how this is supposed to work), problem is doing it without giving any feedback. I wonder if you read the wiki entry before deleting. Anyway, about your earlier suggestion of finding existing tag: do you have any comments if I start usinging tag extend? – hyde Apr 8 '13 at 6:12
  • Oh gods, extend is horrible. I'm not going to hunt your questions down and edit it out, but seriously, it's a bad tag and someone that cares enough is going to come by and nuke it from orbit one of these days. Won't be me, but it's gonna happen. – Charles Apr 8 '13 at 16:32
  • 1
    @Charles After a second glance, I came to my senses and never applied it to any post of my questions, so don't worry. Tag extending should be nuked along with it, both even lack wiki entry. – hyde Apr 8 '13 at 16:59

I don't think this is an awful tag, but I'm not really sure how practically useful it is, either.

Consider that there are really very few things that are truly universal to "plugin programming". There are unlikely to be people who are experts in that subject. The question (and the answers) will have more to do with:

  1. The particular programming language in which you are writing the plug-in, and
  2. The particular thing for which you are writing the plug-in.

Those are things that people can be experts in, and those are the important pieces of data for sorting/categorizing your question. So even with the tag there, the question will still need to have additional tags, meaning that it cannot really stand alone.

Some people use this as the criterion for a meta tag, which we strive to avoid. I disagree that this is a meta tag, strictly speaking. It does describe the content of the question, it just doesn't do so in a very comprehensive or useful way.

Don't despair, though—creating good tags is hard!

  • I earlier tried to get jenkins-plugin-programming + hudson-plugin-programming or jenkins-hudson-plugin-programming or something like that (because they are really the same thing) to stick, but they were not favourably received. – hyde Apr 5 '13 at 7:50
  • Comment about this: "I'm not really sure how practically useful it is, either". Well, do you ask plugin development questions at SO, about a tool which also has a ton of usage questions at SO, mixed with development questions? If not, then yeah, you would not know if it is practically useful or not ;) – hyde Apr 5 '13 at 8:55
  • 1
    I mean, I don't understand what was wrong with [jenkins-plugin] or [hudson-plugin]. You don't need the programming there, that much is obvious on SO. What do you mean that they "were not favorably received"? I would favorably receive them. @hyde – Cody Gray Apr 5 '13 at 23:09
  • jenkins-plugins and hudson-plugins are not about plugin programming. Plain jenkins and hudson are not about plugin programming either. Just check them, it's all about stuff like how to use VCS with Jenkins etc. I have no way to find Jenkins/Hudson plugin programming questions I could answer, and this means others will not find my questions either, except by blind chance. Unfavourably received meant, burninated (just happened to plugin-programming too, btw). – hyde Apr 6 '13 at 13:13
  • 2
    I don't understand why [jenkins-plugins] and [hudson-plugins] wouldn't be about plugin programming. Questions about the language/technology should simply have the language/technology tag. Questions about plugin development with that language/technology would have the [language/tech-plugins] tag. Seems simple to me. – Cody Gray Apr 7 '13 at 10:34
  • I don't understand why they (-plugins tags) are not about plugin programming either, but the fact remains, they (questions with that tag) predominantly are not, and adding eg. java mostly finds stuff about CI use for Java projects. One solution would be to start policing the tags, and I might even be motivated to do that, but that would first require consensus here at meta on what these tags are supposed to mean, and tag wiki edited to match this, which I find unlikely to happen (I mean, look at this question, and btw thanks for your input, I appreciate it!). – hyde Apr 7 '13 at 15:20

Updated my answer:

My suggestion would be to use and . That seems to be the terminology they use on the main landing page of their projects.

That also seems to be how Stack Overflow did it for Eclipse plugins. We use (Rich Client Platform) for specific plugin meta programming-related issues instead of or

The terminology RCP (Rich Client Platform) also originated from the Eclipse project. Plus that term itself is sufficiently obscure and unambiguous to Eclipse end-users that they're not going to tag it with that term (even thought they're having an Eclipse plugin use issue and may want to get the attention of as many Eclipse-plugin developers as possible).

  • Interesting proposal. I don't think there's any official name, but I'll have to check. There's just mailing list name with "dev" in its name (and IME that is not a very good place for SO style questions). Maybe jenkins-framework/hudson-framework would work here though, even unofficially. – hyde Apr 8 '13 at 4:43
  • 1
    How about extend-jenkins and extend-hudson? That "extend"-wording seems to be the exact wording they've used on the initial web page for either project. jenkins-ci.org hudson-ci.org – Stephan Branczyk Apr 8 '13 at 16:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .