Re: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)
- From: Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
- To: Luis Villa <louie ximian com>
- Cc: GNOME Desktop List <desktop-devel-list gnome org>, gnome-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)
- Date: 13 Mar 2003 19:35:56 +0000
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 18:56, Luis Villa wrote:
> I've put up GEP 10, Standards for Inclusion in the GNOME , as well as
> GEP 11, Module List for 2.4.
- 2.3.3 GNOME-ness
I don't think we should specify that apps must use "GNOME 2
technologies", but rather should completely interoperate with other
GNOME 2 applications and the desktop or some such wording. Using GNOME 2
technologies is ambiguous and implies that an app _must_ link against
libgnomeui (or other libraries). Some of these such libraries (such as
libgnomeui) should be in Gtk anyway.
I think if a Gtk app operates well with the rest of GNOME with no holes,
there's no reason why it shouldn't be included. Or even if a KDE/Qt app
integrates well with GNOME (although this is not the case with the
current implementation of GNOME and KDE technologies), why it should
necessarily be excluded.
What do we mean by "Free or Open?" Presumably this means licenses that
GNU say are compatible with the GPL
are approved by the OSI (http://opensource.org/licenses/).
If we exclude repeatable crashers, some core GNOME modules don't qualify
:-). Maybe this should read something along the lines of "Very few (I
mean <=2) repeatable crashes, and the maintainers are dedicated to
fixing bugs like this quickly".
2.4.5 Use of GNOME resources
I think the important bits here are:
-> CVS and translations. How well do the translation team cope with apps
out of GNOME CVS (like gstreamer, IIRC). I think this is the only reason
an app actually needs to be in GNOME CVS.
-> If not in GNOME CVS, should have a public CVS repository. The GNOME
cycle revolves around having bleeding-edge testability.
-> My biased point of view is all modules _must_ be in bugzilla.
Otherwise, forwarding bugs to maintainers is a total PITA.
What about saying that modules must be prepared to conform to the GNOME
freezes in at least one CVS branch.
Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
"If we eventually have the ubercool component system - based on Bonobo, or
something else - then great, we can then proxy it over IIOP, D-BUS, SOAP,
and morse code." -- hp
] [Thread Prev