Re: Moduleset Reorganization -- Take two

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:03 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > > 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.
> Sorry this is something I have to do and have been to busy at work
> there last days. But to precisely answer your questions:


>  - the bindings have not been dropped, there is C++, there is Python
>    (which is now just pygobject + introspection), there is JS (twice),
>    there is no C# (but
>    has a plan), there is no Perl or Java, but they were not in the
>    previous modulesets either

Yes, they were :

>  (and not being in the jhbuild
>    modulesets didn't mean not being released alongside GNOME, for the
>    Perl bindings).

This reminds me. I really don't like that the current module lists seem
to be just links to the jhbuild XML files:

The list should provide clarity to _humans_, so this isn't good enough.
Even without this vague reorganization, at the best of times, we have
enough confusion about what is in the official GNOME module sets.

>  - there is no stronger API/ABI rules, but it's true we'd like to have
>    gtkmm follow the schedule.

So, I'm free to do an ABI at gtkmm 3.2, for instance, as I was before?
You don't seem to link now to _any_ rules for _any_ module sets at the
moment, so you aren't communicating any guarantees to the world about
API/ABI. The internets can now make up any nonsense and nobody can point
them at the truth.

I am generally upset about the whole thing, because I helped make things
clearer when I was on the release-team.

murrayc murrayc com

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