Re: profterm's eel usage ...


On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 15:50, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > There are inevitable tradeoffs here... to me the a big win is to avoid
> > "unmaintainable dumping ground syndrome" by ensuring that everything
> > in the proto lib is on its way into a real lib.

	I have a few points from the last several mails:

		* my libwnck proposal was to have a virtual CVS link,
		  thus having 1 maintained codebase, and no new APIs

		* eel is not an unmaintainable dumping ground, so there
		  should be no objection to depending on it.

		* GtkLabel is too specific a place for a string
		  ellipsizing API IMHO - perhaps a lower level such as 
		  pango is a better place for it.

		* I can see no reasons given as to why profterm should
		  not depend on eel, and/or why we need a new library
		  with a new name to full the 'proto-lib' gap that
		  people seem to see.

		* Eel would seem to me a good, well maintained, working
		  example of such a library in practice, and as such I'd
		  like to see modules use it, starting with profterm.

		* There is no massive problem with having fairly 
		  transient 'unstable' module dependencies, they can
		  be removed fairly painlessly when the next lower level
		  library release comes out.

	Apart from that the proposals sound good, to me at least, I don't think
we need any official proposal / procedure here - apart from people
agreeing and just getting on with it, without creating a whole new array
of modules under 'eclectic maintainership[1]' and a dumping ground, when
we have a goodish, clean and well maintained 'eel' to build on - Yes ?



[1] - to re-mint a phrase ;-)

 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]