Re: Remove GnomeMeeting from Gnome module list?

[Damien Sandras <dsandras seconix com>]

Le mardi 18 janvier 2005 à 20:24 +0100, Danilo Šegan a écrit :

> > GnomeMeeting is not a library, it is an application and unlike some
> > GNOME maintainers, I'm not paid to develop on GnomeMeeting, so I can
> > only do this in my spare time.
> 
> Please don't bring "I'm not paid to work on Gnome" argument on me: I'm
> not either, and many aren't.  I can envy some of those who are, but
> that's not relevant here, and that doesn't excuse me for anything.  I
> mean, it's ok not to follow the schedule, but if that happens, then
> I'm not following the schedule, and I'd admit that.
> 

That's not argument, but a constatation. I can not promise I can do a
new release at each GNOME release.

> > The best I can guarantee is that there is
> > a version that works with the new GNOME at each GNOME release. I can not
> > guarantee I can do a new version at every GNOME release.
> 
> Of course, I'm not talking about major versions.  But abiding by GNOME
> release policies is something that's there for a reason. Being part of
> GNOME releases is exactly about following the policies, it's not about
> marketing.
> 

I don't understand the marketing point.

> >> don't know, and I doubt anybody else does.  It didn't have any
> >> unstable tarball releases for 2.9 (though stable 1.2.0 came out in the
> >> meantime).
> >
> > Isn't it enough?
> 
> Might be, but I (as a translator) can't focus on it appropriately.
> The same is with testers: you're simply not relying on Gnome testing
> community like the rest of modules, since you've already released a
> *stable* version.

If problems are reported, they are fixed, and a new release is made. So
I'm relying on GNOME testing *and* on a wider community testing. I would
say it is even more efficient.

> 
> > We are not playing our own rules. Nobody has never said that each GNOME
> > component should have a new release at each GNOME release, but perhaps
> > the release team should clarify on this.
> 
> Of course it needs not have a new release for every Gnome release.
> But you do make new releases at random times.  The only release where
> GnomeMeeting and Gnome coincided was on introduction of GnomeMeeting
> into Gnome 2.4.
> 

Yes I can not do better.

> 1.00 came around 1 month before 2.6, to be updated with 1.0.1 before
> the release.  How do you make use of Gnome-wide freezes here, I don't
> understand.  (And I complained about it at that time, you might have
> forgotten about it.)
> 

As long as I do not break the code freeze and the string freezes, I
don't see where the problem is.

1.0.1 has been released *especially* for GNOME. As you can see it has
even not been released on www.gnomemeeting.org.

> 1.0.2 came about 6 weeks or so before 2.8.  GTP team complained about
> that as well, but it's hard to keep up with everything there as well,
> especially when Christian Rose was too busy (and he's still the most
> dependable person in GTP).


No strings were added between 1.0.1 and 1.0.2. Was there a reason to do
a 1.0.3 release in time with 2.8? Perhaps, perhaps not. Next time I will
do one.

> 
> Not doing a tarball for 6 weeks which are there in the release cycle
> exactly for translators and documenters prior to Gnome release, means
> that translators' and documenters work wouldn't be seen.
> 

Again, no strings were changed between GNOME 2.6 and GNOME 2.8, so I
didn't consider it was required to do a new tarball. I have mailed the
release team about this, to tell them I would keep GnomeMeeting 1.0.2 in
GNOME 2.8 because I couldn't be ready with GnomeMeeting 1.2 in time for
GNOME 2.8.

> > I think your request is very offending and not very wise either. You
> > have not contacted me before to discuss about this, instead you have
> > directly mailed the desktop-devel-llist, and that proves everything of
> > what I'm thinking of your e-mail.
> 
> Sure, you might have forgotten my complaining about this, asking for
> at least doing tarballs for the sake of updated translations.  I know

I have not received such a mail. I'm sorry. Have you tried getting an
answer? Have you mailed gnomemeeting-devel-list gnome org about that?
No, instead you asked for removal of the module.

> I was annoyed about this at the time, and I'm sure I said it to you on
> either IRC or mail (I actually found out *on IRC* from someone else that
> 1.0 was coming out early: you never notified anyone from GTP that this
> is going to happen; that's when I came on #gnomemeeting to nag you
> about it).

All releases are announced on gnome-i18n. How could I have updated
translations otherwise? Fabrice Alphonso is actually managing this since
more than one year.

> >> Comments and opinions welcome, but please don't turn this into "how 
> >> good GnomeMeeting is" instead of "will GnomeMeeting commit to
> >> following Gnome schedule in the future".
> >
> > I won't. 
> 
> That's pretty much what I figured you'd say.  And that's what I base
> my request on.  You have all the right to be offended by this (though
> I hoped you wouldn't be), but you're simply not following Gnome
> release schedule: it's a simple fact you agree with.  I just don't
> understand your insistance on being in Gnome module list, when you're
> not making use of resources and schedule properly.
> 

I don't insist to be in the modules list. 

Please remove me.


[...]

> That's just fine.  What's important is that you've *never* aligned
> with GNOME schedule.  How come 1.2 came out month ago, and not in time
> for 2.10?  Ok, we can argue this is only "version naming" issue, but

Who said I wouldn't do 1.2.1 or 1.2.2 for GNOME 2.10?

> you have basically stated that 1.2 is stable software.  So, we can
> squeeze GnomeMeeting technically in (I agree), but what good is the
> release schedule doing for you?
> None, to the best of my knowledge.  Feel free to dispute me on how do
> you benefit from string freeze coming in a month, feature freeze that
> came after your stable release, etc.
> 

Nobody said it had to be benificial either.

> 
> So, the core question is this:
>   Does GnomeMeeting *not following* (we all agree on this, right?)
>   Gnome release schedule lead to it being removed from official Gnome 
>   modules list?  Is it still a requirement of any Gnome desktop module 
>   to follow it, or not?
> 
> My answer is yes to both questions, and that's what I'm asking for
> others' opinions on.
> 
> 

OK, I am not able to follow the GNOME schedule for stable releases.
Please remove me from the modules list.

Thank you,

-- 
 _      Damien Sandras
(o-     GnomeMeeting: http://www.gnomemeeting.org/
//\     FOSDEM 2005 : http://www.fosdem.org
v_/_    H.323 phone : callto:ils.seconix.com/dsandras seconix com