Re: Process, etc.

Havoc Pennington wrote:

> Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com> writes:
> > I think pride is involved in the issue.  GConf is your baby, and some
> > of us have disagreements on it at various levels (which we have
> > discussed back and forth).
> >
> > The impression I got back in the day is that you were unwilling to
> > make changes to GConf using excuses (sorry to be blunt about this, but
> > I am trying to explain to you why things did not work out).
> >
> Well, I would just say that at the same time I was discussing lots of
> possible changes with Colm and did agree that we should make a number
> of those changes. And I suggested to you and Dietmar at the time what
> some of the more important issues to resolve might be, and hoped you
> would work on those.

more important is a very relative thing.

> Also at the same time, I was discussing with Colm that a more
> LDAP-like architecture might be a better solution. And I told Colm
> that if it turned out that LDAP-like would be better and someone
> implemented it then I'd be all for moving to that and dropping GConf.
> However that was assuming the LDAP-like solution met the same
> requirements as GConf and had a backward-compat plan for GConf in
> place.

So is there anything new concerning LDAP?

> So my view would be that no, I was not unwilling to make changes, and
> I was not giving excuses; I was not willing to make the SPECIFIC
> changes you suggested, for reasons that I gave at the time.


> A lot of the concerns that I had then may still be relevant. But since
> I've raised the technical issues many times, I'm hoping that after
> Elliot gets a chance to research the issue he can maybe post a nice
> summary with a) the requirements and b) how each solution meets those,
> and we can hash it out again. Maybe he can do a better job of
> clarifying the technical issues than Dietmar or I have been able to.
> Havoc

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]