RE: [gnome-db] Name proposal/contest for gnome-db/gASQL

On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 18:43, Malerba_Vivien stna dgac fr wrote:
> Le dim 16/06/2002 à 23:18, Rodrigo Moya a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2002-06-13 at 23:06, Fernando Martins wrote:
> > > 
> > > I know too little about CVS, so forgive me if this is wrong, but if egnima
> > > is the name chosen to merge gnome-db and gASQL, would it not be more logical
> > > to leave the modules libgda, libgnomedb, gnomedbfe and gASQL as they are and
> > > put egnima as a virtual module to CVS?
> > > 
> > hmm, I don't know what would be better. Anyone has any comments?
> >From the merge process, I'd say that at the moment we have a consistant
> package in gnome-db's gasql branch, which, when I've finished the Gnome2
> port can be a start for Egnima (and then replace completely the current
> gnome-db and gASQL modules since parts of the two are now merged in that
> module). So I don't think a virtual modules would bring much in this
> case.
> IMO the best would be to have 3 core modules: libgda, libgnomedb and
> egnima, and a 4th one (gnome-db) to be a virtual module which basically
> grabs the 3 previous ones. 
so, are you saying to move, when the port is finished, the gasql branch
into its own module (egnima) and then just keep gnome-db as a virtual

If so, copying the gnome-db sources physically to egnima in the CVS
repository might do the trick, without losing any CVS history.

> > 
> > > This virtual module would then became real with time, i.e., would get parts
> > > of the existing modules, get new parts or simply call existing modules, when
> > > the project integration becomes more than just the sum of the parts.
> > >
> > that sounds like a cool idea. The only thing is that we'll lose some CVS
> > history.
> As of now, the integration is (from the source files' point of view)
> quite finished since we now have a lib/ directory in gnome-db (The doc
> is completely out of date though).
that's not a problem anymore, since we have now people who will work on
the docs :-)

> >  
> > > It seems to me that is also missing (at least in public written form) a
> > > vision and goals/features/planning for the project.
> > > 
> > yes, we need more docs, as always :-) Anyone wants to start?
> > 
> > > For instance, to the best of my understanding of both projects, I've seen
> > > gnome-db more has a DBMS front-end, with the goal of making the DBMS easily
> > > accessible and manageable. OTH, gASQL's goal is to ease the development of
> > > database oriented apps (front-ends using DBMSes as back-ends). Correct me if
> > > I'm wrong.
> > >
> > gnome-db and gASQL were having similar goals in some parts, that's the
> > reason of the merge, to not have 2 things doing more or less the same,
> > but just one app doing everything.
> I agree that we need a kind of features and TODO lists at least for
> Egnima. I can propose something if you want.
I've been using bugzilla for that, and I think that's what we should be
using, since it helps a lot when keeping track of who is working on what
and what else is missing. So far, the list of open bugs for
libgda/libgnomedb/gnome-db/gASQL is at:

so, if nobody has nothing against it, just let's use bugzilla. As soon
as we finish the port, I'll create a product for egnima. Or, even
better, I could create it now. For that, I'd just need to know in which
components (parts) are we splitting out egnima. So, vivien, please tell
me which components you want, and I'll create them, so that you can
enter TODO tasks into bugzilla and have people take them when they want
to work on something.


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