Re: Suggestion - discuss in orderly fashion

[Christian Schaller <Uraeus linuxrising org>]

On 18 Jun 2001 15:57:15 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> 
> 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.
> > 
> > first.
> > 
> > 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
> direction on:
> 
>  - 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
>    system usage?
>  - 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.
> 
> Regards,

I will probably regret speaking up, but then again I might regret not
doing so.

We have a tight schedule for getting GNOME 2 out the door, and I think
we all want very much to keep that schedule. 

The only plausible way for that to happen is if Martin completes the
work he has begun on the new and improved gnome-libs. If we halt
development for the next weeks/month in order to discuss different
config systems, the direction on libgnome and whatever then our schedule
is dead in the water. 

So our best shot at keeping our goal intact is kindly asking Martin to
finish the work he has begun. Martin is the maintainer of libgnome and
if anyone wants to contest that then I think they should start producing
code damn fast. And if Martin decides to use bonobo-config then so be
it. If you think this gives Martin to much power over the total
direction of GNOME 2 then start sending Martin patches instead of
showering him with your visions.

I know that this might be seen as awarding Miguel and Dietmar for using
a rather ugly tactic to replace Gconf, but the world is not fair and it
never will be.

Most people here rant about this like it is the biggest decision in
GNOME history being taken. It is not. Bringing development to a halt for
a month to attack eachother and throw summaries around is a much bigger
decision.

Martin please continue your work. You asked for help multiple times and
nobody steped up to the plate, so I don't think they really have a right
to complain now.

Christian


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