Re: Minutes of the meeting (2006-07-31)

["Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>]

Hi,

On 8/1/06, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> >     New modules may be accepted into the desktop or admin releases
> >     with a dependency on gtk#/mono, but any modules accepted into
> >     either of those release sets without a dependency on gtk#/mono may
> >     not gain one without going through the proposal process again in a
> >     subsequent release.
>
> (For the record, I'm still not fond of this)

Noted.  I tried to reflect this in the wording here and in my proposed
version of the announcement.  Do you feel the wording is fair in that
regard?

> Shouldn't we replace gtk#/mono with "a binding"? This should probably be
> true for other bindings too (except maybe python because we all love
> python ;-)).

I think we'd have to discuss that more before it could apply to any
other binding, let alone all of them.  I think sawfish is still on
people's minds, and I personally didn't think there was consensus to
accept any other bindings as a depedency yet.  (I'd personally be in
favor of more but e.g. gtkmm would worry me since I'm not sure it'd
survive if Murray weren't around)

> >   + gtk#
<snip>
> >     => IN, if Mike's split goes through (wrappers for platform modules
> >        in bindings suite, wrappers for desktop libs in desktop suite)
>
> I'd suggest removing the details of the IN since it might sound that
> we're pushing for the gnome-vfs bindings to be in the bindings suite and
> there's a link to Mike's mail for the details: "IN, if Mike's split goes
> through"

Oh, right, looks like my attempt to quickly explain Mike's proposal
(gtk-sharp->bindings, gnome-sharp->desktop) wasn't so good.  I'll
change the wording as you suggest and change the title of the section
to "gtk#, gnome#" from "gtk#".  Does that sound okay?


Thanks!
Elijah