Re: Remove GnomeMeeting from Gnome module list?
- From: Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>
- To: Damien Sandras <dsandras seconix com>
- Cc: Danilo Šegan <danilo gnome org>, gnomemeeting-devel-list gnome org, Desktop Devel <desktop-devel-list gnome org>, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>
- Subject: Re: Remove GnomeMeeting from Gnome module list?
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:13:02 +0000
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 11:17 +0100, Damien Sandras wrote:
> Le mercredi 19 janvier 2005 �9:54 +0000, Mark McLoughlin a �it :
> > Hi Damien,
> > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 09:33 +0100, Damien Sandras wrote:
> > > 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.
> > I'm curious about this - was it that 1.2 couldn't be released for GNOME
> > 2.8 because there were certain features you wanted in the 1.2 release
> > but couldn't finish them on time? i.e. could 1.2 have been released in
> yes, there was still too much to do. The addressbook rewrite to support
> evolution-data-server as well as other backends took much more time than
> It is always a bit hard. I'm currently working on SIP support, I hope it
> will be ready for GNOME 2.12 for example, but I'm not sure it will be.
> It is always a bit hard to determine such things when you are doing
> heavy changes. I also do rely on external libraries like pwlib/openh323
> which are doing their best to be in sync with GnomeMeeting releases, but
> that is not always possible either.
So, I think what's more important to us is not that modules make a
release for each GNOME release, but that if they are being actively
developed then they make a release. The philosophy is very much that the
GNOME schedule should not be feature based, but time based. If some
GnomeMeeting features weren't ready for GNOME 2.8, I would have expected
those features to be disabled, the rest of the work stabilised and a
release made for GNOME 2.8.
The external library issue is hard - I don't know how you deal with
that. Maybe not use any new APIs from that library until a somewhat
stable release of those new APIs have been made?
] [Thread Prev