Re: Remove GnomeMeeting from Gnome module list?

[Damien Sandras <dsandras seconix com>]

Le mercredi 19 janvier 2005 à 09:09 +0100, Murray Cumming a écrit :
> On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 13:07 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:52:37 +0100, Damien Sandras <dsandras seconix com> wrote:
> > 
> > > OK, I am not able to follow the GNOME schedule for stable releases.
> > > Please remove me from the modules list.
> > 
> > Hi Damien,
> > 
> > I think the fault was ours for not having specified requirements very
> > clearly.  It appears that this lack of specification has resulted in
> > undo hardship for both you and the GTP--both thought they were meeting
> > their expectations but had an unforseen conflict.  I would like to
> > work to fix that.  Please see my other email.  I believe we should
> > take a careful look at things before making any hasty decisions.
> 
> So it might be helpful to have a short "module requirements' page here
> http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/
> like the "Developer Platform API/ABI rules" and "Platform Bindings
> API/ABI rules" pages.
> 
> For instance, this might say
> 
> "Maintainers are expected to make regular releases so that recent
> changes can be tested, such as new features, bug-fixes, translations,
> and documentation."
> 
> and 
> 
> "However, maintainers do not need to make a new release if there are no
> significant changes in their module."
> 
> and
> "Maintainers should add new features at the start of the development
> schedule, before the feature freeze. But maintainers are not expected to
> add features if none are necessary, or if they will not have time to
> complete the features during the current schedule. In this case, the
> maintainer should inform the release-team and various sub-teams, that
> the new GNOME release should use the existing stable branch."
> 
> I think this is what most maintainers understand already.
> 

That's what I have always done. But I still wonder a few things :
- I would put a word about branches. It is sometimes confusing to know
what to do.

- There should be a rule to determine if maintainers have to do a minor
release in phase with the GNOME release just to update translations or
not. That could be good and solve many problems.

We have to admit GnomeMeeting was a special case here as the version was
the same in GNOME 2.6 and GNOME 2.8, so it might seem logical to think a
minor release is not required as it had already had a string and code
freeze for GNOME 2.6.

I planned to have GnomeMeeting 1.2 ready for GNOME 2.8, but I couldn't
complete it. So it was completed after GNOME 2.8 and before GNOME 2.10.
I can not really control that.

> If you can make that shorter or clearer that would be great. We can add
> to this later.
> 
-- 
 _      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