Re: [java-gnome-hackers] Version of libgtk-java in GNOME Bindings 2.12

[This is the email about the state of Java that made me think they'd
missed the boat.]

On 8/25/05, Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com> wrote:
> On 8/25/05, Andrew Overholt <overholt redhat com> wrote:
> > * Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> [2005-08-25 10:51]:
> > > [...] It looks like we'll have to ship libgtk-java 2.6 for GNOME 2.12.
> >
> > That's really bad, IMHO.
> I haven't followed the rules and procedures around the bindings
> releases closely, so take what I'm saying with some grain of salt.
> The release team exists to bless a specified set of software that
> follows GNOME's rules for releases, which includes processes designed
> to make software that we're all comfortable both using ourselves and
> pushing as a development platform for others.
> Unless you guys are actively porting lots of applications with wide
> API coverage, and/or almost inhumanly good at writing test suites, it
> is hard to imagine that a binding with only 1   release so far will
> actually have a 'perfect' API, or even a reasonably stable one. Now, I
> may be wrong, but if I'm wrong, it's because you guys are extremely
> unusual.
> So, yes, it is bad, and sounds like potentially very unfortunate for a
> lot of people involved, but we do have these rules for a reason- not
> just to piss on people. If the rules were unclear, or your
> expectations about them were incorrect, then you guys and Murray need
> to figure out where the rules are unclear and what can be done to
> communicate them better, for the next release cycle.
> In the meantime, the options for this cycle appear to be (1) ship the
> old stuff or (2) ship new stuff that no one can reasonably guarantee
> is API-stable or of high quality. Like you say, this is bad- a really
> unpalatable set of options. But we're in the business of saying (more
> so than anything else) 'this is API stable and of high quality', so it
> is a pretty easy choice for the release team to make. The onus is on
> you guys to persuade us (particularly Murray) we're wrong. You'll find
> we're inclined (particularly if you've done a lot of work that we
> somehow aren't seeing) to listen to you, but... having only done one
> release is *the* gigantic warning flag for us. And it can't be any
> other way.
> Hope that clarifies the situation and where we are coming from-
> Luis

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