Re: About GNOME 2.0 - The end of a dream
- From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>
- To: veillard redhat com
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com>, Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>, gnome-hackers gnome org, gnome-2-0-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: About GNOME 2.0 - The end of a dream
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:21:19 +0200
Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > The above statement give the impression that we have made some massive code
> > duplication, which is simply not true.
> This is not the point.
> Do you agree that we should have a formal process to get a new piece of code
> added to the Gnome platform:
> - yes
> - no
> Don't make convolution around it, it's the real question at stake !
I disagree, we do not need an formal process if someone writes a new bonobo Moniker,
because I think that we already agreed to use bonobo. So what piece of code your are
talking about? We have added nothing to the Gnome platform, only reused the existing
PropertyBag interface and Monikers.
Such decisions can be taken by the people actually working on the code. And
everybody is able to see what those people are doing, because we use CVS. We can
even revert changes if someone made a bad decision, due to the use of CVS ;-)
Using a formal process only removes the responsibility from the maintainer, and I
think this will block the whole development.
] [Thread Prev