Re: libgnomeoffice* status

[Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 03:14:32PM +0000, Dave Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 10:44, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > (iii)  Should I add the gnome-office module as an external dependency,
> > > or should I create a cut-n-paste code subdirectory within my source
> > > tree, and synchronise on a regular basis?
> > >
> > I guess the best thing is for all GO apps to depend on it externally.
> 
> Yes, but at the moment, are there tarballs I can tell my users to go and
> download, with some kind of ABI guarantee?
> 
> If the lib is still changing a lot it seems wiser for now to do a
> libegg-style approach and have a local copy inside my app's source tree,
> and to declare the ABI as stable at some point when we make it external.
> 
> Currently I have no external dependencies apart from ones that come as
> standard with Gnome 2.0, and I want to minimise the pain of adding new
> ones.

Given that we have not yet begun to specify the interfaces never
mind implement, test, or use them it would be premature to consider
it.  My gut feeling an approach on the order of

1) create a libgoffice tar ball release 0.0.x (to keep gnome ftp happy)
2) designate code in there as stable vs unstable api.
3) Have all of use link to that library but pick and choose the
   interfaces depending on appetite for api instability.

Couple in some of egg's procedural requirements
    - nothing goes in without a sponsor
    - sponsor warrants to maintain the new blob and will remove it
      if it does not come off the unstable list within 2 major
      releases.  eg commit at 0.0.1 needs to be stable by 1.2, or it
      gets removed.
    - Nothing goes in if it duplicates or overlaps existing goffice
      code.  Things need to be merged or refactored.