Re: [gnome-mud] G-M glade branch

[Robin Ericsson <lobbin localhost nu>]

Daniel Patton wrote:
> Hi all,

Hi!

>         I've been poking about a bit at the glade branch recently,
> finding what
> needs to be done to get it into a releaseworthy state.  There's a couple
> of issues I need confirmation on the resolution of, and one that needs
> to be looked at by someone with more knowledge than me.  Robyn? :)

I'm still here :) Just not around any Linux boxes at the moment.

> Anyway, assuming that the last patch that I submitted is approved,
> here's what I think needs to be done; First off, the new windows in the
> patch need to be connected to gconf.  Also, I think that passwords
> should be stored in .gnome2_private rather than gconf, not a major issue
> though.  The new connection wizard is going to need the code to connect,
> obviously, but that may be a problem until the next issue is resolved; 
>
> I've been studying the gobject documentation recently, but I'm still not
> confidant about using it.  Would it be necessary to make the conversion
> before the release, or would we be able to make the conversion next
> release?  As far as I can tell at the moment, it wouldn't be too much
> trouble either way.

Well, this is a good stance in how the future should be, should we 
release 0.11 based on 0.10 (HEAD branch) which actually work, which the 
glade branch is far from doing. I haven't looked at either code for some 
time now, and maybe the best would be to sit down and have a look at 
current problems, get them on a list together with "wanna have" stuff 
and then we make a decision, either use glade branch, or we don't :)

Most issues in bugzilla, 3 bugs and 5 enhancements is a pretty good 
start I guess.

> Lastly, The connection code seems to be b0rked, something which I have
> no idea about how to trace/fix.  It segfaults as soon as I hit the
> connect button, though I realize that's no good as a bugrep.

I noticed a few problems myself but I was convinced those problems where 
in the libgnetwork, not g-m itself, but I could be wrong :)



regards,
	Robin