RE: *mm in 2.6?

CCing to d-d-l in case anybody else has opinions. But please don't swamp the
list with "my language is the one true language" nonsense, because you're
all wrong.

It is a nice idea, and thanks for thinking about it, but:

1. If *mm gets in then all the rest will want in, but we are not capable of
judging their quality, completeness, or future prospects, and we might err
on the side of optimism. That's a problem for a platform that must make long
term API/ABI promises.
2. When the platform gets bigger, the chance of release delays get bigger
when we make API changes, because Plaform modules
are more interdependent than Desktop modules. 
3. We can put it in Platform Extras or Platform Bindings release set and not
worry so much about dragging down the Platform itself.
4. gnomemm is not 100% complete, and might not be for 2.6. For instance,
gnome-vfsmm will be API-frozen for GNOME 2.6, but there might be useful
stuff that we have not wrapped. This might be unacceptable.
5. Maybe it makes no difference anyway. Would Red Hat have shipped *mm 2 if
it was part of the GNOME Platform? I'm not sure.

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Waugh [mailto:jdub perkypants org] 
> Sent: Mittwoch, 12. November 2003 15:23
> To: Murray Cumming Comneon com
> Subject: *mm in 2.6?
> Hey,
> Have you considered proposing *mm [1] for inclusion in 2.6? 
> There would be an immediate argument that there's no point 
> including them until we need to (with stuff depending on 
> them), and some question about putting things into the 
> Developer Platform before having them in the Desktop or whatever, but:
>   - by all accounts, *mm rocks
>   - strong maintainership and commitment to GNOME
>   - C++ is hugely saleable to ISVs, moreso than C#, python, 
> etc. would be an
>     excellent 'enterprise' bullet point
>   - it wouldn't make sense to include *mm in anything other 
> than the DP
>   - more visibility and 'officialness' of a major language binding
> Anyway, I think it would be sweet, and totally appropriate 
> (despite what the naysayers will naysay). If you're keen, I'd 
> encourage you to pitch it... It's time. :-)
> Thanks,
> - Jeff
> [1] Well, the most relevant and complete *mm bits... There 
> are quite a few
>     now! :-)
> -- 
> Come to 2004!   
>> ~jdub/2004/
>     "Women 
> are too irrational to 
> be crazed killers anyway." - Angus Lees

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