Re: Boxes and 3.4

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 13:00, Frederic Peters <fpeters gnome org> wrote:
But despite that announcement, most of the application module
maintainers continued to follow the release schedule, and were part of
releases we handled. (as evidenced by

Yes, we want that and we get it without having to fight about Vinagre vs. Boxes, for example. GNOME's process is a great set of best practices to follow without having to involve the release team in picking GNOME favorites (eg. The One True Music Player). And because it gives GNOME translation and documentation teams an implicit schedule they can rely on.

Want to be part of GNOME? Join are community and you are. Want to be a GNOME App? Follow our practices and you are.

Again, the question, what's the meaning of the apps moduleset? It's
been the place for "a serie of applications" handled by the release
team, remnants of the old modulesets, but doesn't it lack some more
formal definition?

It shouldn't be handled by the release team because that gets us in to these threads all over again which was entirely the point of implementing this change. If that's been going on, it really shouldn't be.

The i18n coordinators add modules to Damned Lies; the Documentation coordinators (eg. Shawn) track the Mallard work across modules; in the same way, the release team or anyone with git access, really, can and should be encouraged to add their build instructions to the apps moduleset.

If it's applications released by the GNOME project, shouldn't we get
back some release criteria?

Module maintainers release their modules; GNOME provides infrastructure and a community.

If it's just to facilitate jhbuilding, what's the difference between
the -apps and the -world modulesets?

That should be fixed, I agree.

Well, there was the moduleset reorg announcement, but after that we
also had 8 months of practice, and they don't quite fit, because in
some sense, what has changed? nothing, applications still wanted to be 
under the GNOME shelter, and the release team kept offering that.

We put up a "feature proposal period" in place, and applications kept
being proposed, and that discrepancy is part of this thread, Vincent
wrote: "I said that I didn't feel Boxes should be tracked as a feature".

If that's what happened then did we ever /really/ implement the change that we all agreed on? 

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]