Re: About GNOME 2.0 - The end of a dream

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

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.

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.

Regards,

Maciej




_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers