Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

On 23/02/10 16:09, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Le mar. 23 févr. 2010 à 14:12:47 (+0000), Martyn Russell a écrit:
Actually, I think that the Red Hat maintainers of the toolkit had an
interest in stability (for ISVs) and that stifled development. As
such developing anything in GTK+ takes a lot longer than it should
and that's why it is always hard to get into development there or to
fix something. This has long been the internal politic of GTK+.

Wasn't it possible to develop the new things in branches to showcase
your ideas and tell the world about those new features?

Yes and it still is, see the MPX branch, the GSEAL work was also started in a branch and many things are done that way.

Just to make things clear, this is a real question, not an attempt to
point finger or anything like that.

I am asking because, even in layers like where compatibility is
key, trying things in branches and showing the world proved to have
worked quite well.

When talking to some of the core maintainers, they often say they want to refactor things internally in GTK+ to make maintaining it easier and getting new people into the toolkit easier. Just today on #gnome-hackers, I saw someone interested in getting into GTK+ development and he said it was really hard. I agree.

Johannes makes a really good point too. At some point you could probably say that GTK+ was _THE_ exciting project to work on and a lot of code got in that should have had more reviews and perhaps that's why it needs cleaning up in places now. GTK+ has also been too exposed to change some of these issues (hence the GSEAL work).


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