Re: About GNOME 2.0 - The end of a dream

On 18 Jun 2001 15:45:17 -0400, Joe Shaw wrote:
> [CC list trimmed]
> > Because people are totally confused about what we want, and what we have done. And
> > maybe because we are working on that stuff, whereas others only talk about it.
> > 
> > > Why was, for example, Havoc not aware of it?
> > 
> > Havoc was aware of the existence of the "gconf:" moniker, and I also think he
> > knows that we write software in order to use it.
> Well, from having read the list, Havoc seemed to take offense to what
> amounted to be a reimplementation of GConf. I'm sure you've done some
> good work with bonobo-config, and I really like the idea of being able
> to access configuration data through the PropertyBag interface... but
> that isn't really the issue here.
> The issue is larger than this particular example. In the early days, the
> GNOME platform essentially just gnome-libs (and the panel API in
> gnome-core), and "the platform" didn't have any dependencies outside of
> GTK+ and an ORB. This was pretty easy to maintain and everyone was
> largely on the same page. (Of course, the requirements for what went in
> were also a lot less strict. *cough*gtkdial*cough*)
> Now GNOME is a larger project with several core modules with different
> maintainers and contributors, and few people seem to be on the same page
> or have the same vision for the next iteration of the platform. Miguel's
> "Everyone Please Give Each Other Love" mail is nice and good, but it
> isn't going to get people to have a collective vision for the next
> development platform, and is just going to get people mad at each other.
> If we were going to have known we would be spending a week on this, it
> would have been nicer if we could have resolved this ahead of time
> instead of having this flame-fest-followed-by-reasonable-discussion at
> all, right? I know you and Havoc didn't agree back when you brought it
> up on the GConf lists, but when it has an impact on the development of
> the platform like it did, it has to get resolved. I'm glad that this
> thread has at least taken this particular issue in the right direction,
> but it doesn't fix the overall problem.
maybe it could be a nice idea to have a technical committee (or something) to
have the final decision on these issues, and maybe to also state the
technical directions of the GNOME base libraries/programs. Having some
sort of control on these issues would avoid all this flame wars, which,
as noted by Andy Tai, are really bad for GNOME


Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> - <rodrigo ximian com> -

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]