Sorry, no, I didn’t realize it would have that effect. I’m sorry for the trouble that’s caused. We’ve recently taken the handoff of the old plugin that was here in this namespace. So the codebase is entirely new, it just lives in the same namespace. But my goal has been to provide a reasonably smooth upgrade path for users of the old plugin. I didn’t realize that using a different naming convention for the entry point plugin file would have the effect that you described.
Now we’ll need to figure out which is the better approach going forward: to document this part of the upgrade path? (Which would just be: reactivate after upgrading to 4.0, right?) Or to rename the file back to plugin.php, which would then cause the same effect for all of those clients who’ve already installed the new version.
Come to think of it, given that this is such a major change (and this is still a development / release candidate, by the way, because we’re still discovering and ironing out wrinkles like this), maybe it’s no so bad that a user of the previous plugin would hit this speed bump and slow down to notice the huge change and need to be mindful of the rest of the upgrade path, most notably, the deprecation of v3 icon names.
Your thoughts?
