Re: gep-1 - a decision?

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 07:11, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 	According to GEP-0, there has to be a vote. That hasn't
> happened yet ... :-)

	So - it seems the consensus is that we reject the RFP; I've updated the
GEP with thanks to all involved. The rational agreed by everyone[1].
Sadly the gep page isn't updating still so here's how it looked:

<h1>4. Decision and Rationale</h1>

<p>After some investigation, it transpires that the API additions needed
to split out the existing C++ bindings present a smaller barrier than
anticipated</p>

<p>Murray's comments about the default build seem accurate, and as such
we feel it would be in the best interest of both pieces to ship and
maintain them as separate source packages. This would involve the
re-instating of the IDL compiler headers, but this is no problem in the
2.2 timescale.</p>

<p>Finally - we recognise and appreciate the great work of Gergo Erdi
getting the C++ bindings into working order, and recommend that they be
packaged and distributed widely.</p>

	And in conclusion; Mark's going to do the heavy(?) lifting of splitting
the code out into another module and merging up the core changes. We'll
prolly branch for 2.2 development [ 2.5 for ORBit2 in fact ;-], and Mark
has a most interesting 'GOA' GEP coming up that may be good /
interesting for the C++ bindings.

	Regards,

		Michael.

[1] - except Owen who didn't make it.
-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

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