Re: System configuration and GNOME 2.0

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Hi,

Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com> writes: 
> It would be useful to know what Red Hat is doing in this area. 

I've summarized that for Chema in the past, to the extent that I know
what's going on. I'm not closely involved in this sort of thing.  When
we bring up XST post-2.0 I can go ask the relevant people and try to
convey the requirements and opinions of Red Hat on this topic.
  
> Porting things to the new platform does not include adopting new tools
> like the XST into the GNOME 2.0 release timeline (or Metacity).  

We have long-since decided that neither of those things will be in
2.0. Don't worry about it. There was an explicit thread already in
which we determined to decide on XST post-2.0. After we get 2.0 out,
we need to discuss XST and the issues it addresses and decide what to
do.

> GNOME 2.0 is not the end of the development cycle, and we are giving
> people mixed messages about what will be in GNOME 2.0.  

Metacity and XST are clearly not goals for 2.0. The module list is
currently accurate on this point:

  http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/modules/

This is where people should be looking for the definitive answer on
what's included.

> Lets get things done, and lets prepare for GNOME 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc to
> replace existing pieces or include new components, but lets please get
> this thing out of the door. 

Everyone agrees. It just needs to happen.

The blocking issues are gnome-core, control-center, help browser,
nautilus, etc., rather than adding new modules. New modules can always
be dropped from a release, they aren't ever showstoppers - unless we
are silly enough to replace an old module with a half-finished new
thing, and I've argued strongly against that. The only case where it's
happened is the help browser, because we seem to have no other option.

Havoc