Re: Proposed module: gimmie applet

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 04:52 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Homepage: http://www.beatniksoftware.com/gimmie/
> svn/git/bzr/...: http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/gimmie/
> Proposal on d-d-l: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2007-September/msg00441.html
> 
> Short description:
> ==================
> Gimmie is a unique desktop organizer for Linux. It's designed to allow
> easy interaction with all the applications, contacts, documents and
> other things you use every day.
> (Note: only the applet is proposed for inclusion)

I like many of the ideas in Gimmie, but I'd like to see them integrated
properly. This seems to be happening with Empathy and parts of
OnlineDesktop and I expect them and Gimmie to work together to get the
job done properly. It seems too early to preempt that.

I'm also against just accepting a module which does so many things. I'd
much rather have a discussion about accepting a People applet. There's
plenty of complication in that alone, though we could deal with that and
end up with a great new feature that can gradually be used by other
parts of the desktop too.

But instead we are being forced to give a yes/no for an applet that can
be a People applet, a Programs applet, a Library applet, or a "Linux"
applet that seems to be an overview of them all, all visible to the user
as a meaninglessly-named "Gimmie" applet with preferences to turn it
into the different separate applets. I don't need to take all this all
together as if it's some kind of new paradigm that I should just switch
over to. Even if some people have decided that you like that whole
system, we need to be persuaded in terms of the merits of the individual
parts and we need the chance to accept them one by one.

I'm not convinced that the maintainer understands this, so accepting
Gimmie as is wouldn't make it any more likely that the necessary
discussion and work would happen.

> Summary so far:
> ===============
>  + again, this is only about the applet
>  + some issues that needed to be solved first, and Alex sent a status
>    update indicating they were fixed
>  + there used to be a lack of maintainer resources. Current status
>    unknown.
>  + stability used to be an issue. Current status unknown, but should be
>    better.
>  + performance/memory footprint? (it was just someone wondering about
>    it, not people saying that it's bad)
>  + a few +1 from gimmie users
> 
> Alex can probably send a small update.

-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com