Re: Process, etc.

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com> writes: 
> I think pride is involved in the issue.  GConf is your baby, and some
> of us have disagreements on it at various levels (which we have
> discussed back and forth).  
> 
> The impression I got back in the day is that you were unwilling to
> make changes to GConf using excuses (sorry to be blunt about this, but
> I am trying to explain to you why things did not work out). 
> 

Well, I would just say that at the same time I was discussing lots of
possible changes with Colm and did agree that we should make a number
of those changes. And I suggested to you and Dietmar at the time what
some of the more important issues to resolve might be, and hoped you
would work on those.

Also at the same time, I was discussing with Colm that a more
LDAP-like architecture might be a better solution. And I told Colm
that if it turned out that LDAP-like would be better and someone
implemented it then I'd be all for moving to that and dropping GConf.
However that was assuming the LDAP-like solution met the same
requirements as GConf and had a backward-compat plan for GConf in
place.

So my view would be that no, I was not unwilling to make changes, and
I was not giving excuses; I was not willing to make the SPECIFIC
changes you suggested, for reasons that I gave at the time.

A lot of the concerns that I had then may still be relevant. But since
I've raised the technical issues many times, I'm hoping that after
Elliot gets a chance to research the issue he can maybe post a nice
summary with a) the requirements and b) how each solution meets those,
and we can hash it out again. Maybe he can do a better job of
clarifying the technical issues than Dietmar or I have been able to.

Havoc