Re: State of gvfs in Gnome 2.21

["Lucas Rocha" <lucasr gnome org>]

Hi Vincent and Alex,

2008/2/12, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>:
> Le mardi 12 février 2008, à 16:13 +0200, Lucas Rocha a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2008/2/12, Luis Villa <luis tieguy org>:
> > > On Feb 12, 2008 8:36 AM, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> > > > Despite all the hard work, it doesn't look like the new Nautilus will be
> > > > ready for GNOME 2.22 without regressions.
> > > >
> > > > Why aren't we talking about punting it until GNOME 2.23/24? We've never
> > > > allowed this kind of thing before - punting would be entirely normal.
> > >
> > > We once delayed a release for a gtk release which wasn't yet stable,
> > > IIRC- the porting was too far along to revert the porting work in a
> > > timely manner (which I'm guessing is also the case here) and the
> > > regressions were too large to do a .0 (which also seems to be the case
> > > here, though I haven't followed it closely.)
> > >
> > > But agreed that the right thing to do is to delay the release rather
> > > than release a .0 with substantial regressions (as I ranted on a bit
> > > at my blog and on gnome-bugsquad.)
> >
> > I agree. We shouldn'd discard the possibility of either postponing the
> > gvfs-based Nautilus or delaying the .0 release if needed. Obviously,
> > releasing Nautilus with too many or some big regressions is not a good
> > plan.
> >
> > Personally, I'm more in favor of postponing the gvfs-based Nautilus
> > because delaying our release can bring more problems for us and for
> > the projects relying on our schedule.
> >
> > Hence, it would be good:
> > - to have a plan with the list of regressions we can't accept for 2.22
> > - to hear (mainly) from Alex if this plan is feasible
>
> At this point, it's not just about nautilus. Other modules were ported
> to gio... Reverting, while doable, would be painful.
>
> I'm not sold on the fact that there are many important regressions. The
> main regressions, in my mind, are the ftp backend, the network backend
> and the connect dialog. There might be some other regressions, but I've
> not noticed them. (well, there are also the themes and fonts backends,
> but they're clearly not blocker)
>
> Network backend and Connect dialog shouldn't be hard. I'm volunteering
> to do the Connect dialog. And maybe the network backend if nobody steps
> up.
>
> There are plans for ftp, but I don't know the status of this, so I'll
> let someone else talk about it.
>
> All in all, we're still in good shape, IMHO.

Good to know.

I gave a not-so-well-informed opinion about this topic and created
some unintended noise. Sorry for that.

Let's work on having the best possible release with the new stuff. :-)

--lucasr