Re: Time to move GGV to the Attic? (Was: Subversion migration recap (cut-off Friday July 14th))

[Tomislav Vujec <tvujec redhat com>]

On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:34 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> Having not seen a single code change in a year can be a _good_thing!
> I prefer the look and feel of evince but find myself frequently using
> ggv because evince can't handle things correctly. SO implying that an
> "actively developed" program is necessarily better for the users is
> ridiculous!

I agree. But I don't think that anyone is suggesting that evince is
better than GGV because it is being actively developed. GGV is not being
_maintained_, therefore no one is doing any source code modification,
therefore it doesn't need an active source code repository.

However, since someone might want to pick it up in the future, it is
being _archived_, not _removed_.

I am sorry, but I just can't see how's your protesting against
_archival_ of GGV going to help either Evince or GGV? Or did you miss
the point?

> Well, I have received enough "works for us...must be your
> set-up...NOTABUG" responses or no response at all that I have given up
> on filing bugs on anything of the core GNOME desktop and developer
> platform. I am sure others feel likewise.

Now this topic might need broader discussion, but it certainly doesn't
have anything to do with initial proposal. There are just too many
modules in the gnome CVS to be able to navigate it in any useful way,
and keeping inactive projects there is not helping anyone.

-- 
Tomislav Vujec                        Product Marketing Manager
Red Hat              1801 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
Tel +1 919 754 4250  Fax +1 919 754 4250  Cell. +1 919 649 4719
Skype/AIM/Yahoo/IRC: tvujec               http://www.redhat.com