Re: GNOME Development Series Snapshot 2.3.0: "Mighty Atom"

[mpeseng tin it]

>-- Messaggio originale --
>From: Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>
>To: GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
>Subject: Re: GNOME Development Series Snapshot 2.3.0: "Mighty Atom"
>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:08:12 +1000
>
>
><quote who="Jeff Waugh">
>
>> But all of this is what the proposal process is meant to address -> it's
>> up to you guys to convince us to include your software.
>
>Ahr, this came out wrongly. That's not how it should always work, and
>certainly not for every proposed module. Some things are proposed almost
>by
>default - fontilus and nautilus-cd-burner are good examples of these.
>They're already regarded as stable, have obvious maintainers, simple goals,
>are appropriately aligned with the goals of the desktop release, fill nice
>feature gaps that users will like, etc.

Epiphany is quite stable (like I dont know of a single reproducable crasher),
have an obvious mantainer, fill a gap. We are certainly doing our best to
be aligned with desktop release goals, and I think we are not doing a bad
work too :)

>But in this case, with the browser, it's a harder problem. Now we have
two
>projects to choose from, both of which have their merits, some historical
>baggage, and no one wants to offend the maintainers or get anyone off-side.
>

Yeah it's hard, but this should not stop us to make a call.
Personally I'd prefer to feel offended be the cause of a slow down in GNOME
project goals. We need a browser and we have two, different, but both good.
I think we just need to make a call on which of them is and will be more
compliant to our goals.
About the choice matter I think Louie made good points here:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-March/msg00595.html
But I'm not the best one to talk about this :)

Marco