Re: Gtk2-Extras

On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 17:17, Carl Nygard wrote:
On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 11:13, Kevin C. Krinke wrote:
On Sun, 2004-09-19 at 10:40, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:

a) One package for Gtk2::Ex::*
b) One package for Gtk2::Ex::* and another for Gtk2::Ex::Simple::*
c) A package for each Gtk2::Ex::* and one bundle Bundle::Gtk2::Ex
d) Give in to the anarchy and let everyone decide for themselves how
     they package their stuff but at least agree on name spaces
e) <insert yet another complicated flying monkey wrench here/>

I choose d.  I don't have a problem with e.g. sharing the
Gtk2::Ex::Simple namespace with others, I think first-come first-serve
is reasonable, and I don't think anyone has objected to
Gtk2::Ex[::Simple].  I also like the idea of the bundle.  

That gives you the freedom to bundle your dialog stuff as you think is
logical.  I don't see a benefit in bundling every damn thing
separately.  If there are mutual dependencies, keep them in the same

That still doesn't preclude people from submitting classes for inclusion
in already-existing tarballs.

This looks like progress to me!

How does the following sound?

We use Gtk2-Ex for all the singleton modules that others may depend upon
and exclude anything more complicated than simple helper functions,
widgets and constants for working with Gnome2/Gtk2. Anyone[0] is free to
update and enhance Gtk2-Ex and the modules contained therein.

Continuing on, there should not be an actual Gtk2::Ex::Simple module and
instead everyone[1] just does what suites their needs best, be it
contributing code[2] or maintaining their own name space (that someone
hasn't already been taken in the spirit of FCFS).

rough trees...

-Anarchy maintenance:
-me maint (co-maint)

-Carl maint (co-maint)

-Florian Ragwitz (not contacted yet) (no idea where this fits exactly, maybe a
                               Bundle::Gtk2::Ex::Widgets is in order)

[Couldn't find anything else on for Gtk2::Ex but that
was probably not the most efficient thing to do. Good enough to paint
the picture though.]

If we start up something at (or wherever), say gtk2-ex.??.net,
everyone can jump in and work at whichever and not have to rely 100% on
the individual maintainer's schedules to update things and such... or I
dunno, just tossing ideas around at this point.

If things are even remotely like what I've blabbed above then the issue
now I suppose is the whole where/site/cvs decision.

As I can't allow for general access to my work's devel server, should
shared access to cvs be important I will end up using (I've
already got an account there). Anyone else have any ideas or
suggestions? Heck, another spanner for the clockw0rks wouldn't hurt :)


PS: If I've forgotten overlooked, ignored, or trampled anything please
let me know. I don't want to step on anyone's toes if I have by being
pushy at all... just want to get things materialized.

[0] Anyone referring to anyone who's contributed to the project already
can update the (or whichever) site/cvs. Don't even know if a
policy like this is appropriate.
[1] No restrictions, just pop on the mailing list and iron out a name,
kinda like what happens on the module-authors perl org list but only
Gnome2/Gtk2-Ex-tras specific.
[2] This can be patches to existing modules, complete extra modules with
their own bundling, or additional modules for an existing bundle or
anything anything else I can't think of off hand.

Kevin C. Krinke <kckrinke opendoorsoftware com>
Open Door Software Inc.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]