Re: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 04:39, John Fleck wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 18:15, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 20:13, Glynn Foster wrote:
> [snip]
> > > 
> > > This is absolutely cool stuff - I'd like to tentatively add 'zenity' and
> > > 'battfink' to the list.
> > > 
> [snip]
> > 
> > So, each of these raises an interesting question that I don't really
> > have an answer to: what do we do when a proposed new module (actually a
> > replacement) is quite possibly a regression from the module being
> > replaced? Under what conditions do we allow that? 
> > 
> 
> I think the terminal widget and html widget discussions elsewhere have
> suggested at least part of the answer - if the old one is unmaintained
> and the new one has a maintainer, that weighs heavily in favor of the
> new one even if it's current state of being is a regression.

Sigh.  This just doesn't make sense to me.  Regressions are BAD, we
should not casually accept them.

-Bill

> 
> Cheers,
> John
-- 
Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>

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