Re: new modules consensus
- From: danilo gnome org (Danilo Šegan)
- To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>
- Cc: Desktop Devel <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: new modules consensus
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:41:58 +0200
Mark, d-d-l,
I'll comment only on where I'm in disagreement with Mark, or where I
have something to add ;-)
Today at 15:06, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Its clear there is yet no overwhelming consensus on whether or not
> we should include Evolution in GNOME 2.8. What I think is clear,
> though, is that there is a huge *desire* to include it - both from
> the GNOME community and the Evolution team. I think we need to
> decide on whether
>
> a) whether any of the issues listed above absolutely need to
> resolved before inclusion, or
>
> b) whether we are confident that the Evolution team and the GNOME
> community will resolve these issues post inclusion
>
> If we decide (a), then we must hope that the people will continue
> to work hard to resolve the problems and at some point in the
> future we'll be able include Evolution. If we decide (b), we then
> hope that Evolution's inclusion will actually boost peoples desire
> to resolve the problems rather than give people the impression that
> no problems remain.
>
> I vote (b)
We should also not forget that provided Evolution team doesn't
fulfill aforementioned goals to integration (switching over
Bugzilla's, resolving copyright issues, whatever else is there), we
*ARE* able to remove it from the future official Gnome D&DP releases,
even if we include it now.
So, armed with that possibility as well, I can hardly see a reason
not to vote (b) myself now ;-)
> - gnome-system-tools
> ...
> The consensus, then, would seem to be that we don't include g-s-t.
I remember similar conlusions being made in 2.4 and 2.6 time. So,
I'd vote for including it NOW in 2.8, provided anything which is
still lacking is fixed post-inclusion (as in choice b. for evo ;-).
Cheers,
Danilo
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]