Re: About GNOME 2.0 - The end of a dream
- From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>
- 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 18:43:12 +0200
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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)
> Hi Dietmar,
> 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.
We use monikers to access the configuration backend, so this is a dynamic dependency. The
"gconf:" moniker is not functional, so we have used the "xmldb:" moniker for testing. So
please stop to spread the untruth.
> 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.
> gnome-2-0-list mailing list
> gnome-2-0-list gnome org
] [Thread Prev