[GnomeMeeting-devel-list] Re: Remove GnomeMeeting from Gnome module list?
- From: danilo gnome org (Danilo Šegan)
- To: Damien Sandras <dsandras seconix com>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org, gnomemeeting-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: [GnomeMeeting-devel-list] Re: Remove GnomeMeeting from Gnome module list?
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:24:09 +0100
Today at 19:12, Damien Sandras wrote:
> It seems to be an attempt to flame, but I will still answer to this
You're so terribly wrong (fwiw, I was very much excited when
GnomeMeeting was accepted as official Gnome module). Alas, if you
wish to think I'm into flames, I can't stop you.
>> GnomeMeeting is officially part of Gnome desktop. Unfortunately, it
>> doesn't follow Gnome schedule: releases came in the midst of release
>> cycles in 2.6 and 2.8, and the same might happen with 2.10. I simply
> First of all, that is not right. GnomeMeeting 1.2.0 has been released
> for GNOME 2.9, and the tarball has been put on the FTP server for
> release with GNOME 2.10. I know it is 3 months earlier, but I don't see
> why I should delay the release just to stick with the GNOME schedule as
> long as the provided tarball works with the intended GNOME release.
> I was however unable to make a release for GNOME 2.6 as I had not enough
> time, but 1.0.2 was available for GNOME 2.6, so I don't see the problem.
There's no problem, except when we're talking about official Gnome
modules for which there ought to be some basic assumptions which
GnomeMeeting is not fulfilling. See below for exact details.
> GnomeMeeting is not a library, it is an application and unlike some
> GNOME maintainers, I'm not paid to develop on GnomeMeeting, so I can
> only do this in my spare time.
Please don't bring "I'm not paid to work on Gnome" argument on me: I'm
not either, and many aren't. I can envy some of those who are, but
that's not relevant here, and that doesn't excuse me for anything. I
mean, it's ok not to follow the schedule, but if that happens, then
I'm not following the schedule, and I'd admit that.
> The best I can guarantee is that there is
> a version that works with the new GNOME at each GNOME release. I can not
> guarantee I can do a new version at every GNOME release.
Of course, I'm not talking about major versions. But abiding by GNOME
release policies is something that's there for a reason. Being part of
GNOME releases is exactly about following the policies, it's not about
>> don't know, and I doubt anybody else does. It didn't have any
>> unstable tarball releases for 2.9 (though stable 1.2.0 came out in the
> Isn't it enough?
Might be, but I (as a translator) can't focus on it appropriately.
The same is with testers: you're simply not relying on Gnome testing
community like the rest of modules, since you've already released a
> We are not playing our own rules. Nobody has never said that each GNOME
> component should have a new release at each GNOME release, but perhaps
> the release team should clarify on this.
Of course it needs not have a new release for every Gnome release.
But you do make new releases at random times. The only release where
GnomeMeeting and Gnome coincided was on introduction of GnomeMeeting
into Gnome 2.4.
1.00 came around 1 month before 2.6, to be updated with 1.0.1 before
the release. How do you make use of Gnome-wide freezes here, I don't
understand. (And I complained about it at that time, you might have
forgotten about it.)
1.0.2 came about 6 weeks or so before 2.8. GTP team complained about
that as well, but it's hard to keep up with everything there as well,
especially when Christian Rose was too busy (and he's still the most
dependable person in GTP).
Not doing a tarball for 6 weeks which are there in the release cycle
exactly for translators and documenters prior to Gnome release, means
that translators' and documenters work wouldn't be seen.
> I think your request is very offending and not very wise either. You
> have not contacted me before to discuss about this, instead you have
> directly mailed the desktop-devel-llist, and that proves everything of
> what I'm thinking of your e-mail.
Sure, you might have forgotten my complaining about this, asking for
at least doing tarballs for the sake of updated translations. I know
I was annoyed about this at the time, and I'm sure I said it to you on
either IRC or mail (I actually found out *on IRC* from someone else that
1.0 was coming out early: you never notified anyone from GTP that this
is going to happen; that's when I came on #gnomemeeting to nag you
Yelp neither had a release for Gnome 2.8, but stable tarballs were
released when needed.
>> Comments and opinions welcome, but please don't turn this into "how
>> good GnomeMeeting is" instead of "will GnomeMeeting commit to
>> following Gnome schedule in the future".
> I won't.
That's pretty much what I figured you'd say. And that's what I base
my request on. You have all the right to be offended by this (though
I hoped you wouldn't be), but you're simply not following Gnome
release schedule: it's a simple fact you agree with. I just don't
understand your insistance on being in Gnome module list, when you're
not making use of resources and schedule properly.
Should others be offended by you playing down on everybody else who is
actually able to follow the release schedule?
> Moreover, removing it from the GNOME modules, won't solve the
> translations problem. It is up to the release team to decide on this,
> and if they decide that a new release is required at each GNOME release,
> and that I can not do a new release between GNOME releases, then I will
> silently accept the removing of GnomeMeeting from the official modules.
It will solve the problem of "these modules have gone through regular
Gnome quality assurance procedure".
> However, I think this is probably stupid and exagerated. Actually your
> request seems very weird to me, but perhaps that's just me.
Perhaps it's weird, it's certainly not common to request something
like this. But you only followed Gnome 2.4 release cycle so far, and
that wasn't without its problems either. I *know* that you don't see
any benefit in following the schedule (you've said it so many times),
and that's why I ask GnomeMeeting to be excluded from the module list.
If you don't understand the benefits of a schedule, feel free to ask
me, and I'll answer it *again*.
> I don't know if you realize, but I'm currently adding SIP support into
> GnomeMeeting, and it might take more time than the 6 months separating
> each GNOME release, so I don't see how I could fit with the release
> schedule, that's impossible.
That's just fine. What's important is that you've *never* aligned
with GNOME schedule. How come 1.2 came out month ago, and not in time
for 2.10? Ok, we can argue this is only "version naming" issue, but
you have basically stated that 1.2 is stable software. So, we can
squeeze GnomeMeeting technically in (I agree), but what good is the
release schedule doing for you?
None, to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to dispute me on how do
you benefit from string freeze coming in a month, feature freeze that
came after your stable release, etc.
So, the core question is this:
Does GnomeMeeting *not following* (we all agree on this, right?)
Gnome release schedule lead to it being removed from official Gnome
modules list? Is it still a requirement of any Gnome desktop module
to follow it, or not?
My answer is yes to both questions, and that's what I'm asking for
others' opinions on.
Anyway, thanks for replying, Damien, and please try not to make this
personal more than it needs to be.
] [Thread Prev