Re: Again: please clarify the decision on IBus integration

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 18:58 +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 18:25 +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 17:56 +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 01:40 +0800, Aron Xu wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Ma Xiaojun <damage3025 gmail com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Hi, Aron Xu
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I've got some of your points through your last post.
> >> >> >> > It's a topic worth discussing.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Can you share your ~/.config/jhbuildrc so all of us can talk about the
> >> >> >> > same things?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sorry I'm not building GNOME by hand right now, so no good jhbuildrc
> >> >> >> for you to share. I believe there are many people build it and they
> >> >> >> can help you.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Did you actually test any of the code that Rui and other platform
> >> >> > developers worked on?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The changes are simple to read, have you read the patches before
> >> >> asking me such a question?
> >> >
> >> > I'm the one reviewing those patches for inclusion in
> >> > gsettings-desktop-schemas, gnome-settings-daemon, and
> >> > gnome-control-center.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I've read the patches. I'm guessing you haven't read or tested any
> >> > of the updated patches posted in Bugzilla then, otherwise you'd have
> >> > seen my name.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No, I'm not following Bugzilla closely, but the patch reviews are just
> >> removing racy stuff and try to avoid mistakes in the very detail
> >> implementations. But do you understand here we have an architectural
> >> problem and what I'm talking about aren't about the patch quality?
> >
> > The architecture is the same that we had before, except that GNOME bits
> > are handling the configuration storage, and application.
> >
> > This is the way we apply settings for every user-wide setting.
> >
> 
> Did you read and understand what I've replied to Rui?

Yes. And there's nothing that we're doing that precludes Input Methods,
or frameworks from working in non-GTK+ applications, or other
environments.

I failed to find any points in your e-mails that would make us want not
to merge this code.

Your points seem to largely based on the fact that the Input Methods
know better, when the point is that they don't, otherwise we wouldn't be
having discussions on how badly they integrate into GNOME.

Having replaceable Input Methods Frameworks is also not something we're
interested in because it makes the out-of-the-box experience worse, the
stability worse, and the integration worse.

If you have points that I missed, feel free to detail them. The ones I
remember reading were largely irrelevant to the type of integration
we're doing.

Cheers