Re: Mono bindings a blessed dependency? [Was: Tomboy in 2.16]

["Luis Villa" <luis villa gmail com>]

[Andrew responded off list, and got it just right, so I'm forwarding.]

On 4/21/06, Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org> wrote:
> Alex Graveley wrote:
> >
> > HELLO?!  Check 1-2-3?
> >
> > The discussion *was* about Tomboy.  An small app I wrote that people
> > like, and which could benefit from adoption in GNOME.  Thanks for
> > throwing any chance for productive discussion out the window.
>
> Running the risk of putting words into other people's mouths, I don't
> think that's what Luis meant.
>
> The question of "Should Tomboy be integrated into the GNOME Desktop"
> spawned the question of "Should Mono applications be integrated into the
> GNOME Desktop" - and that question shouldn't be answered just with
> reference to Tomboy, it should be answered with awareness of the fact
> that there is a huge wealth of mono applications out there, and we are
> shooting ourselves in the foot if people whine about the implementation
> language. But otherwise the conversation would go "Why are we adding a
> dependency on Mono for a notes application" - and stop right there.

On 4/21/06, Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org> wrote:
> Alex Graveley wrote:
> >
> > HELLO?!  Check 1-2-3?
> >
> > The discussion *was* about Tomboy.  An small app I wrote that people
> > like, and which could benefit from adoption in GNOME.  Thanks for
> > throwing any chance for productive discussion out the window.
>
> Running the risk of putting words into other people's mouths, I don't
> think that's what Luis meant.
>
> The question of "Should Tomboy be integrated into the GNOME Desktop"
> spawned the question of "Should Mono applications be integrated into the
> GNOME Desktop" - and that question shouldn't be answered just with
> reference to Tomboy, it should be answered with awareness of the fact
> that there is a huge wealth of mono applications out there, and we are
> shooting ourselves in the foot if people whine about the implementation
> language. But otherwise the conversation would go "Why are we adding a
> dependency on Mono for a notes application" - and stop right there.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Alex, if you read Murray's
response, it was of the form 'no tomboy, because no C#, because doing
c# just for tomboy is dumb'. That line of logic is what I was trying
to stop.

Luis