Re: About GNOME 2.0 - The end of a dream
- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>
- To: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>
- Cc: veillard redhat com, 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 09:30:13 -0700
On 17Jun2001 04:51PM (+0200), Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > Using a formal process only removes the responsibility from the maintainer,
> > No it makes him responsible for following the plan, i.e. give him more
> > weight actually. If the gconf change had been planned before hand then Martin
> > very simple answer would have been "we decided this, this was the plan",
> > and he would have been in a far better position to defend himself.
> > In fact nobody would have objected at that point, and this accident would
> > not have happened.
> Using monikers to access configuration was planned a long time ago. I think most people
> know bonobo/doc/Monikers. So I consider that not as a evil decision we made, instead it
> is part of a plan we made public available a long time ago (I will ignore any mail
> stating not knowing that document)
While it was a personal plan of the Bonobo maintainers to implement
this, it was never a generally agreed upon plan for GNOME 2; we all
agreed, in public discussion forums, that gnome-libs should use GConf
It's also untrue that GConf was made into a run-time dependency of
gnome-libs, as you said in another message; it was removed as a
dependency entirely, although we are all agreed to fix that, so I
don't know if it's still worth arguing about.
I think Daniel may be right that GNOME could use a process for major
architectural decisions, perhaps something like Sun's Architecture
Review Committee. I guess there's a question of whether maintainers
will be willing to put up with such a thing. There is also the problem
that we don't appear to have a consistent vision for the architecture
or even the requirements.
] [Thread Prev