Re: Trying to reach consensus for the proposed modules

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

Paolo Borelli wrote:

> The naive way to go at this would be splitting g-p-e in two (things that
> could go in the desktop like pygtksourceview, pyapplet etc and things
> that are not required for the desktop). However this distinction sounds
> extremely artificial to me and would double the workload of making
> releases etc. Gustavo made clear that he does not want to maintain two
> packages instead of one just because of bureaucratic issues and I
> totally agree with him.
>  
However, if one of the packages is stable enough to join the bindings 
release set, the distinction stops becoming bureucratic and becomes 
technical. It's "we recommend OEMs to use these bindings and bless them 
as being stable" vs. "can randomly change without warnings; no stability 
guarantees" (note: this doesn't refer specifically to g-p-e, I haven't 
ever used it).

So splitting out the stable parts of g-p-e could actually get many more 
users for those parts, as developers can be confident of 
future-proof-ability.

--
Andrew