Re: New module proposal: tracker

[Martyn Russell <martyn lanedo com>]

On 18/08/09 23:54, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Le mardi 18 août 2009, à 20:26 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
> > Le mardi 18 août 2009, à 20:19 +0200, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
> > > We'll do our best and are committed to formulate our answers in a
> > > non-vague way and improve the communication of the project's members,
> > > about the project, towards the community.
> >
> > Maybe just clearly state what tracker (or tracker-store, the thread
> > already lost me :/) will bring to GNOME if integrated. I don't want to
> > hear about ontology, sparql, data store, indexer, or whatever. I want to
> > know what it will bring me as a user, and what opportunity it gives me as a
> > hacker, for my modules.
> >
> > So, yeah. Just list use cases. (Somebody already gave a few examples in
> > a mail, iirc, but it got lost in the noise for me).
>
> Thanks for the listing some use cases. But I guess I should also have
> asked: which of those use cases are ready to be integrated in GNOME now?
> (ie, assuming we accept tracker today, which patches can we merge?)

The use cases are interesting for applications. Tracker doesn't really 
give anything to users directly it gives a framework to applications to 
query data and provide users with more ways to connect their data.

The only way it gives to users is if people decide to fire up the UI we 
send with Tracker, but this is a smaller part of the whole project and 
less important than tracker-store.

> Note that I'm not for/against tracker; I'm just trying to understand
> what accepting it in the desktop for 2.30 will change for 2.30. If the
> reply is "nothing, it's a chicken-and-egg problem", then I would think
> that proposing it as an external dependency first could make more sense.

I think ultimately, not a lot. It will make the technology available for 
applications to integrate with. I think it is partially a 
chicken-and-egg problem, but right now we are integrated with Nokia apps 
on the Maemo platform so we are not just a stand alone entity with no 
testing in that respect.

I too think being an external dependency might well be a more logical 
first step. Until it is more established at least.

> (and on a general note, I agree with Matthias' mail about finding what
> we're trying to achieve)

Well, to some extent that's down to the applications, but I think, 
overall, we are trying to give users a more connected experience with 
their data and other applications on the desktop.

--
Regards,
Martyn