Bindings rules (was Re: John Palmieri joining the release-team)

["Vincent Untz" <vuntz gnome org>]

Hi,

On Wed, November 9, 2005 01:17, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 11/7/05, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
>> Le lundi 07 novembre 2005 à 14:30 -0500, Luis Villa a écrit :
>> > On 11/7/05, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
>> > > > Where does the Java stuff stand? It would be nice to have a
>> > > > politically able shepherd to help get them on board.
>> > >
>> > > They've been in since the start.
>> >
>> > I thought they missed the last release train?
>>
>> We released 2.12 with the 2.10 releases of the java bindings. But the
>> 2.12 java bindings are in GNOME 2.13.1. So I think everything is
>> alright.
>
> Well, it does bring up another question.  I believe one of the rules
> of the bindings release set was that there was a commitment to target
> the most recent versions of libraries; it was one of the sticky points
> as the C# bindings intentionally targetted older releases but still
> felt they ought to be in the release set (which Miguel brought up in a
> rather accusing tone towards Murray since Miguel didn't
> like/understand the rule...a situation that was at least temporarily
> handled by just explaining the rules that currently exist and an offer
> to allow the bindings group to discuss further if they feel they
> should change.)  That topic will almost certainly come up again, and
> they may well bring up how the java bindings lagged last release if
> they haven't yet targetted the newer library versions.  Is there a
> difference in these cases that I'm not aware of (I'm admittedly not
> that familiar with the bindings side of things)?  How do we handle
> this?  What's the rule or rules?

My opinion is that they tried to target the newer library versions,
but for some reasons (maintainer change, it seems), they couldn't do
it in time. It's not like they deliberately chose to target older
versions. It was a better choice to do it this way than rushing with
new APIs they could have broken in the future because it was not so
great.

Also, they've shown a great commitment to this rule in the past,
which is a good point.

Also, I agree with John: they can't be perfect everytime. Being perfect
to enter is hard, but always being perfect might not be possible ;-)

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.