Re: Stock Items Deprecation

[Matthew Brush <mbrush codebrainz ca>]

On 13-09-13 02:29 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> hi;
>
> On 13 September 2013 03:10, Matthew Brush <mbrush codebrainz ca> wrote:
>
> > > As some of you may have noticed we have recently deprecated Stock Items in
> > > master.
> > >
> > > Some details on this change may be found here:
> > >
> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KCVPoYQBqMbDP11tHPpjW6uaEHrvLUmcDPqKAppCY8o/pub
> > >
> > > Please let us know what you think.
> >
> > Do you mind if I simply ask why are you asking for feeback?
>
> can't really talk for Jon, but I think it's obvious why: you can only
> get feedback once you do something, and find issues when people start
> porting their code, not before. as a rule, people don't port their
> code until it's strictly necessary, so doing thought experiments and
> getting feedback prior to actually deprecating API yields either
> skewed, or no results.
>
> luckily, we have GTK under revision control, so if we need to do so,
> we can revert commits — which is something that happened multiple
> times in the past (even in this cycle).
>
> it's also obvious that somebody's mind "has been made": that's how
> things get started, developed, and committed. it doesn't mean that
> opinions can't change, though; it's still possible to convince to
> revert, or to defer to a later cycle. we can even "undeprecate" in
> another cycle.
>
> it helps if you don't automatically assume that people working on GTK
> are stubborn or simply don't care.

I certainly don't assume that automatically, but when massive 
deprecations are made presumably without any prior discussion (at least 
on any public GTK+ channels), and then feedback is asked for and a 
number of important issues are raised and nothing is done about it, or 
even responding to some of the issues, just ignoring the thread for 2 
months now ... what can be assumed?

It's just frustrating trying to contribute to GTK+, or even to just code 
apps against it, when this stuff happens.

Cheers,
Matthew Brush