Re: Moduleset Reorganization -- Take two

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 15:57 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 15:52 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 13:53 +0100, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
> > > I'm interested to know what is going to happen about the module set
> > > reorganization now. We had the second proposal presented, we had a
> > > HUGE discussion about pros and cons with a lot of different views on
> > > this. So now what?
> > > 
> > > - Will this be implemented?
> > > - If so when?
> > > - Or will there be another iteration with another proposal and discussion?
> > [snip]
> > 
> > I am also very concerned that there has been no further announcement
> > about this, and no response to the concerns raised, though the recent
> > releases show at least some, though not all, of these changes.
> > 
> > What is happening? Maintainers deserve to know.
> 
> Taking just the bindings, for example, you seem to have done this
> without bothering to inform the affected maintainers
> - Dropped all bindings apart from C++ (gtkmm and co).
> - And volunteered gtkmm for slightly stronger API/ABI and
> release-frequency rules.

Will the release-team please reply.

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