Re: State of gvfs in Gnome 2.21

["Kalle Vahlman" <kalle vahlman gmail com>]

2008/2/12, Luis Villa <luis tieguy org>:
> On Feb 12, 2008 9:24 AM, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 04:13:45PM +0200, Lucas Rocha wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > More for release-team to decide, not d-d-l. Devs should code.
>
> Bzzt. Also wrong answer. r-t's role is in large part to reflect the
> will of devs, so devs should definitely be discussing how to
> prioritize and deal with this problem.

With all due respect, I thought this matter was already labeled by the
people doing the ports as "doable, let's keep on working hard"
earlier.

Then, somewhat expectedly I guess, people *not* doing the ports
started discussing what's the best way to save face.

I suggest people either convert to "doing the ports" camp (yes I'm
looking at the list[1] for something within my power to port), to
"testing the ports" camp or at least stop acting like gio already
didn't make it.

There's people determined to make this work and working hard to do
that, let's rather support them than make them feel rejected.

-- 
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi
Powered by http://movial.fi
Interesting stuff at http://syslog.movial.fi