Re: GNOME ABI review

[Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 06:34, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> 4. It should be recommendable and actively maintained. If someone says
>    "this API sucks" we should say "we're working on improving it" or
>    "here is how to use it" but not "yeah everyone knows that library
>    is broken, you are dumb for using it"
> 
>    If the core GNOME developers avoid the ABI, that's a good
>    indication that we're wrong to suggest it to others.
> 

Another thing related to this that we need to clear up is how we
communicate to developers how the platform is best used. A common
example here is libglade usage vs codegeneration.

Basically i think we need developer documentation on a higher level than
per-module. Saying what each module does, how and when to use it, how it
fits into other modules, and the future plans for that module (or
replacing technologies).

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Alexander Larsson                                            Red Hat, Inc 
                   alexl redhat com    alla lysator liu se 
He's a suave misogynist senator in drag. She's a violent kleptomaniac cab 
driver with a flame-thrower. They fight crime!