Re: Tomboy in 2.16 (lets get this over with) (from digest)

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 10:23 +0200, David Neary wrote:
> 
> Elijah Newren wrote:
> > 1. gtk-sharp isn't (yet) in the bindings set (and I haven't seen it
> > proposed by its maintainer(s))
> > 2. gtk-sharp isn't yet a blessed binding dependency (only python is so
> > far; though there doesn't seem to be any objection so far so this one
> > looks pretty good if 1 goes through)
> > 
> > It can't really go in until those two are handled.
> 
> I have a vague recollection of a discussion during 2.11 which went along
> the lines of "we shouldn't include <language binding X> in the bindings
> set, because at the moment there are no apps that use it proposed for
> the desktop". Am I dreaming?

Yes, dreaming I think. I've never heard that argument. It's sometimes an
argument for distros not to ship bindings, though it's a stupid argument
because the bindings provide a development platform, and a development
platform is useful to others even if you don't use it yourself.

But people have often said that we shouldn't use a binding in the
Desktop if it's not in Bindings. That makes sense to me - we generally
want to depend on stuff that has committed to certain API practices, and
it's fair to be concerned if they can't commit to the simple practices
asked of the bindings.

I've been vigorously attacked before for suggesting Gtk# might want to
follow the bindings rules. I'll try to stay out of this, so that others,
who feel the same, can show that they care too, because I think they
do. 

>  If that's an argument that's been used in
> the past, then we'd be in a chicken & egg situation.
> 
> One other question - let's suppose that gtk# gets added to the bindings
> - what additional step is required to "bless" it? Is including an app
> that depends on it in the desktop enough of a blessing, or is there some
> ritual with robes and incense that I don't know about?
> 
> One more (final) question: does including a gtk# app imply depending on
> Mono? Or are we separating the language from its compiler? If we depend
> on Mono, what is our possible exposure as a project to patent issues?

I'm more concerned about being forced to follow Microsoft's direction.
Whatever stupid decisions Microsoft take, Mono has to take them too,
because compatibility and equivalency with the MS Windows implementation
is so important. I've seen how Microsoft destroy their own creations
because they have so few pressures to maintain quality or cohesiveness.

I wouldn't be afraid of losing a notes application because of this, but
I wouldn't want it to mean that we had blessed this dependency for
deeper use.

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