Re: new module decisions [was Re: gnome-screensaver]

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 09:11 -0500, Dan Winship wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> >>   - David's recent point in this thread about the desktop release set
> >> not being so important also rings true to me.  It's a binary in-or-out
> >> yet there are lots of really rocking "Gnome" programs that are well
> >> integrated but aren't in the set.
> > 
> > It's foolish to imagine that being in the desktop release set is
> > essential. But it's also foolish to ignore the big benefits to focusing
> > our efforts (in a synchronized way) on particular implementations of the
> > features that we want. It allows us to release software for distros to
> > use.
> 
> Do we have any evidence that any distro actually cares what we consider
> to be in and out of the desktop release?

I think so, yes. And when integrate things, they have almost no choice.

And when we adopt what distros have already adopted, we get the benefit
of better translation, documentation, usability, integration, and
timely-releases for that software. It doesn't hurt us that distros were
using it before we decided to focus our efforts on it.
  
>  Is there some distro out there
> loyally shipping epiphany as its default browser and waiting for us to
> certify GIMP before they allow it into the default desktop install?

Again, you don't need to prove that the Desktop release set means
everything to prove that it means something. It's a straw man argument.

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