Re: Putting the 'Mono debate' back on the rails

[Mike Kestner <mkestner novell com>]

On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 23:12 -0400, Joe Shaw wrote:

> > If those guarantees are more important to you than playing by the rules
> > of the Gnome Bindings set, than Gtk# may simply be better of staying
> > outside...

Starting to seem like it.  The other alternative is to alter the rules,
which I believe is better for GNOME.  We didn't come to the discussion
as a beggar.  We came with kickass applications in our wallet.

> Perhaps.  I can't speak for Mike, but as a user of those bindings I 
> certainly hope compatibility isn't broken to appease the (IMO, overly 
> strict) rules of the bindings set.

Ironically, this seems to be the only rule with any teeth.  

There is no requirement to provide any specific library or even a
minimal subset of the platform set.  Presumably, I could have proposed a
Gtk# binding that bound only glib and it would be eligible for the
bindings set.

My Gtk#-lite 2.16 binding would be allowed to break API in 2.18 as long
as I make it parallel-installable, thereby breaking all existing
Gtk#-lite applications unless packagers provide Bindings release 2.16
with their 2.18 desktop.

I don't even have to bind 2.18 if I don't feel like it.  My 2.16 binding
can ship as an official Gnome binding for 2.18.

So... 

there is no schedule guarantee - I can provide my 2.16 in 2.18.
there is no meaningful stability guarantee - I can break 2.16 in 2.18.
there is no content guarantee beyond what is _not_ allowed in it.

We probably should drop this discussion, because even if we were to
break our API and do the split, tomboy still probably doesn't get in.
Just being in the bindings set doesn't really get app developers
anything.  And from the earlier discussion, it sure doesn't sound like
there's "consensus" to "bless" Gtk# as a Desktop set dependency.

-- 
Mike Kestner <mkestner novell com>