Re: Suggestion - discuss in orderly fashion
- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- To: Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>
- Cc: gnome-hackers gnome org, gnome-2-0-list gnome org, gconf-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Suggestion - discuss in orderly fashion
- Date: 18 Jun 2001 15:57:15 -0400
Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org> writes:
> Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:
> > All the threads seem to be coming back over and over again to
> > the same GConf vs. bonobo-conf* issues, which get argued
> > again and again.
> > Why don't we:
> > A) Find someone to write up a summary
> > B) Everybody contributes to the summary until they are happy
> > that it covers all viewpoints.
> > C) Then restart the discussion from there if need be.
> Good idea.
> But I'd like to suggest doing
> D) Find someone who maintains libgnome and libgnomeui and then have this
> maintainer find some people who actually work on it.
> If we fail with D), the whole discussion is lame since libgnome(ui) is dead
> and there's nothing to discuss anymore.
I don't think this is libgnome(ui) issue at all. We need to have some
- Do we have one config system or two? If two, how do the interoperate?
- What should be the requirements on GNOME apps and libraries for config
- What should we be recommending to GNOME developers?
- Where should future development on config systems go?
Once those issues are settled, the particular API to be used in
libgnome(ui) will hopefully fall out, or may turn out to be an
irrelevant implementation detail.
Perhaps we also need to have a similar process to get a unified
direction on the maintainership and direction of libgnome*, but that
should be dealt with as a separate process.
] [Thread Prev