Re: Suggestion - discuss in orderly fashion

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Christian Schaller <Uraeus linuxrising org> writes: 
> 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. 

If we simply decide on which backend to use for bonobo-config, then
that is a 1-line change to implement either way, so doesn't endanger
any schedules.

We can also change this post-API-freeze, so could even use the whole
RFP process to decide it with plenty of time to spare.

> 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 would like to point out:

 - I think it was my maintainership that was challenged/ignored in
   this case, not Martin's.
 - I had already implemented the GConf stuff in libgnome, so 
   it's not a matter of patches vs. visions - the patch has been 
   in libgnome for over a year to use GConf.

So I really don't think that Martin's maintainership is being
challenged, libgnome's course of action should flow from decisions on
lower levels about config systems. And it's not a matter of not doing
the work in libgnome, since I did it over a year ago.

Havoc


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