Re: new modules for 2.12

On 7/20/05, Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com> wrote:
> [If everyone could review and make sure I'm not misrepresenting the
> views of the group, I'd appreciate it. this is particularly true of
> the office suite section.]
> The release team met today, and we talked a bit about new modules.
> Some conclusions were even reached. :)

Sounds like 'release-team decides' instead of 'release team gets
community consensus'.  May be okay, but I thought we were trying to
push the latter harder.  Our discussion was kind of inbetween since we
were trying to bring in the voices from the community so far, but...I
dunno.  Just thought I'd flag it in case someone wants to think up
better wording if anyone is worried.

> In:
> * evince: It's clearly a great, very gnome-y app. We'd like to thank
> the ggv and gpdf authors for all the work they've done over the years
> * services-admin: is now fairly polished and the maintainer wants it
> in, and no one has objected to that.
> * gnome-keyring-manager: underwent a lot of work after the last round
> of objections, and has not been objected to in its new format.
> release-team is a little worried that the maintainer has

that the maintainer has....?  Done with the project what you did what
that sentence?  ;-)

> Out:

I'd prefer "punted for discussion in 2.13/2.14"

> * eggcups: there is still some edginess about including such a partial
> solution.

Um, I'm going to have to be edgy about your wording.  :-)  It's too
vague.  Are you trying to give the impression that
does-one-thing-and-does-it-well isn't welcome?  Are you saying the UI
design is wrong (eggcups, as proposed, doesn't do printer
configuration and if a notification app is going to do configuration
then the UI should probably be printer oriented instead of user
oriented)?  Are you saying it won't fly because of the patched cups
issue?  Or are you worried that we should integrate it to
gnome-cups-manager first, having it replace gnome-cups-icon while
having a separate printer configuration program?  Even having been
part of the meeting earlier, I still don't know what you mean with
this wording.  And I'm afraid that people will assume the wrong thing
if you don't clarify.

> We'd encourage it to get integrated with gnomeprint and
> gnome-cups-manager (as much as is possible) and have One Printing
> Solution going forward, instead of much discussion about disabling
> this or enabling that and maybe or maybe not having it all overlap.

Um, perhaps poor choice of wording as there's a valid sentiment in
there, but I think it does sound like a component of the One Printing
Solution[1], and that it doesn't overlap[2] (yes, it was hard to
explain that it doesn't[3,4] but it doesn't).  Yeah, the patched cups
is annoying (though it doesn't harm anything if one doesn't have a
patched system).  Maybe just comment that "eggcups looks great, but it
was proposed late so we're punting to 2.13 for discussion, which may
provide extra time to resolve concerns of those who haven't yet seen
the light  ;-)"

> * office suite. There is still a lot of confusion about what this

I thought this was "productivity suite", not "office suite".  Was I mistaken?

> would mean for GNOME- if we have a 'GNOME office suite', does it mean
> the GNOME QA team has blessed the office suite? What does it mean for
> our relationship with open office? I could go on in this vein for
> quite some time :) We still encourage the office team to do a release
> together and on a regular schedule, because we think that's good juju
> for any group :) and because we think that going ahead and Doing It
> might resolve some questions. But without more consensus as to what
> this would mean for the impacted teams and the release process, it's
> hard to say it is the right thing right now. We should start probably
> set up a small group (perhaps the release-team + the abi and gnumeric
> folks) and/or start discussing it in Real Life (at the Summit) and
> move forward from there to see where the future takes us.

We could leave this to "discussions didn't seem to get very far about
what the release rules would be and who would be in it, so we're
punting to next release cycle"

We haven't mentioned the system startup services stuff.   (they did
propose, it didn't they?  I can't remember...) What were opinions on
that?  I haven't had time to test or look at it; I feel that no one
else has either since it was dropped on d-d-l so recently, but perhaps
that's not true...



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