Re: GNOME Online Accounts 3.34 won't have documents support

On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 20:10 +0000, Debarshi Ray wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 08:02:16PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 18:52 +0000, Debarshi Ray wrote:
Grep for "Future of Pocket in GNOME" from 24th August 2018 in

Which solves what? You're removing the Documents and Mail
you're removing Pocket support.

Two things.

First, we are talking about GNOME Documents, GNOME Online Accounts,
GNOME ..., etc.. We are talking about GNOME.

If you are not going to respond to a thread that has run for six
months, on a topic that you care about, then I am sorry, I can't
assume good faith. Those who participated agreed that they don't have
time to work on Pocket, nor is the current state of affairs very
good. That's how we decided to drop it.

Having to constantly repeat that, yes, this was of interest to me was

Reading that mail you mentioned won't bring those features back.
far from the first time you've wanted to remove Pocket support from
GOA, as if it was a time sink, and a maintenance pain.

I just don't understand the strategy of disabling/removing features
services, breaking apps on newer hosts.

We have always, since the very first days when David Zeuthen was
around, pushed back against adding random accounts to GOA. We have
always said that the integration should be meaningful to a good cross
section of users, that there should be a default application or OS
component, etc..

This is nothing new. We eventually wrote it down as

The Pocket integration doesn't do much. You yourself said that you
seldom use it.

Mostly because the various integration points didn't exist. We (GNOME)
were pining for a sharing interface which didn't, and still doesn't,
exist, and epiphany maintainers didn't want to integrate the patch that
was already written.

We regularly refuse requests to add random accounts to GOA. Just look
at the enhancement requests left open on Bugzilla. There are lots
that I have dealt with from other channels. It isn't fair that we
down other requests, but keep Pocket in.

I don't think that feature requests should be treated on the same level
as existing, merged, features, and I don't see any merge requests for
new account types, or providers.

It certainly is a maintenance burden. It's a burden when one has to
port away from deprecated GLib and WebKit APIs, it's a burden
when someone has to tweak the base-classes to accommodate yet
another quirky service provider or to just repay some technical debt
and clean things up.

I wish that was brought forward earlier in the thread. Seeing as it's a
maintenance burden, and it's impossible to write an application with
some reasonable degree of expectation that Pocket support will be
present in the host gnome-online-accounts framework, I think it best
for it to be removed completely, so that applications don't try to use
it in lieu of in-application independent support:

But it's a burden we can carry as long as we have someone committed
push it forward towards a better future. That future need not be in
two months time, but it has to be something that's more realistic

Sorry, I don't understand what unicorns have to do with this

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