Re: Remove GnomeMeeting from Gnome module list?

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 09:33 +0100, Damien Sandras wrote:
> Le mercredi 19 janvier 2005 �9:09 +0100, Murray Cumming a �it :
> > 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.

OK. I think that is here:
http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/for_maintainers.html
It can be rearranged. These documents have grown gradually.

> - 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.

That's what I mean to say with 
"Maintainers are expected to make regular releases so that recent
changes can be tested, such as new features, bug-fixes, translations,
and documentation."

We do expect it, though we shouldn't crucify you if you forget it
sometimes.

> 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.

A string freeze does not mean that there will not be new/improved
translations - it just means that there will not be strings to
translate.

> 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.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com