Re: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)
- From: Glynn Foster <glynn foster sun com>
- To: Luis Villa <louie ximian com>
- Cc: GNOME Desktop List <desktop-devel-list gnome org>, gnome-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)
- Date: 14 Mar 2003 01:57:23 +0000
Hey there,
> So, each of these raises an interesting question that I don't really
> have an answer to: what do we do when a proposed new module (actually a
> replacement) is quite possibly a regression from the module being
> replaced? Under what conditions do we allow that?
Absolutely - I'd rather be hard assed on myself and make sure that the
modules are up to the same quality as the ones that we're replacing. I
have no problems with that.
Right now, zenity probably needs a compatibility wrapper, and battfink
needs to support ACPI. Both are pretty easy hacks, that just need to be
done.
> I really don't have a good answer, and to be honest it's not something
> I'd previously given much thought to. But it seems like it ought to be
> covered.
I guess it very much depends on the time available and the interest
level. I'm probably able to do some of the work, to make this happen -
but thinks like adding ACPI is a certain impossibility.
See ya,
Glynn :)
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]