Re: New Gnome Goals

[Adam Schreiber <sadam clemson edu>]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:42:52PM -0500, Adam Schreiber wrote:
>> In preparation for SoC, the Gnome SoC admins have decided that in
>> order to help make decisions on proposals this year, we will be
>> requiring links to bugs with patches the students have written be
>> submitted with their proposals.  In order to facilitate that process,
>> we wanted to make sure there was plenty of low hanging fruit to grab.
>> To that end, we would like to make several of the Next Gnome Goal
>> Candidates [1] official Gnome Goals.  Please look at these goals over
>> the next week and reply with comments so we can improve the goals as
>> needed.
>>
>> The proposals to be made goals are:
>>
>>  * Update about dialogs: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/AboutDialog
>
> I don't really see the importance. It can be added, but rather have
> other GNOME goals proposed/fixed first. Also potential string freeze
> breaker (have to wait until 2.26.0).

Two out of the four would require freeze breaks to commit them at this
point.  However, it won't hurt to have patches in hand in a couple of
months.

>>  * Remove markup in translatable messages:
>> http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/RemoveMarkupInMessages
>
> As specified in the bugreport, this depends on
> http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/RemoveLibGladeUseGtkBuilder, which
> isn't a GNOME goal. Further, you'd have to wait until after 2.26.0
> (although is not far away).
>
> I propose the following additions:
> 1. http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/RemoveGnomeOpenGnomeHelp
> 2. http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/RemoveLibGladeUseGtkBuilder
>
>
> #2 needs better instructions though. The migration instructions it links
> to is incomplete. Should be updated by someone who knows all details
> (saw in some bug that you had to specify a mime type in some file..
> POFILES or something, this due to intltool)

You're right #2 definitely needs better directions which is why adding
it wasn't proposed.  But removing the markup will have to be
postponed.

Cheers,

Adam