Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

[Philip Van Hoof <pvanhoof gnome org>]

On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 18:38 +0200, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
> El mar, 23-02-2010 a las 17:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof escribió:

Hey Claudio,
 
> > > On 23/02/10 12:36, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> > > > I often hear complaints about how the RedHat guys turn down patches
> > > > from other contributors (mostly from members of companies competing
> > > > with them),

> Hold your horses right there. I don't know where are you reading any
> claim like that. No one has claimed that someone is under pressure by
> his company to reject patches from competitors, as you seem to interpret
> -- please be careful with your words.

That contradicts with what you quote from Alberto:

"I often hear complaints about how the RedHat guys turn down patches
 from other contributors (mostly from members of companies competing
 with them)"

Those people complaining are apparently claiming (to Alberto) that they
perceive this to be the case.

I wrote, however:

> I don't know nor do I claim this to be the case. I have not seen this
> being the case, not for Gtk+ (I'm not involved in its development).

That means that I said that I don't perceive it like that.

I don't know how much more careful in wording one can be.

It is true, however, that it's hard to get a review for certain core
components (I'm thinking about the gobject.c performance improvements,
which took almost a full year to get any reaction). This is an area for
improvement (it would help if more people would be invited to help with
said maintenance, I think).


Cheers,


Philip

-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be