Re: GNOME ABI review

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! 

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