Re: About GNOME 2.0 - The end of a dream

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

On 17 Jun 2001, Miguel de Icaza wrote:

>
> > Do you agree that we should have a formal process to get a new piece of code
> > added to the Gnome platform:
> >    - yes
> >    - no
>
> The obvious answer is `yes', because that is the hip thing to do.  But
> in reality that is not the case.  Things are evaluated by maintainers,
> and maintainers get to make the last choice.

But in a project like gnome where we have many dependant parts, a change
in one module can affect many others (both ones in gnome cvs and
elsewhere).

While you might say the maintainer has ultimate decision power, they do
have a duty to those making use of their module (especially in the case of
libraries and other things exposing an API -- and I would include parts of
the moniker namespace under the term API, btw).  The best way to do this
is through open discussion and consensus.

The other thing I have found is that some issues that might seem
insignificant to one person are very important to others.  This is a great
reason for maintainers to get the opinions of as many users of the code as
possible.

James.

-- 
Email: james daa com au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/



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