Re: Propose pyorbit for 2.13/2.14?

["Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro" <gjc inescporto pt>]

Seg, 2005-11-14 às 08:56 -0700, Elijah Newren escreveu:
> Hi,
> 
> As I brought up previously[1]:
> 
> > According to James, gnome-python isn't useful without pyorbit
> > (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=313246#c3).  If that's
> > accurate (I guess that depends on your view of usefulness of
> > libgnomeui and bonobo* vs. libgnome gnomecanvas, gnomevfs, and gconf,
> > which I by no means would qualify as an expert to judge), then we
> > should probably either have pyorbit proposed for addition in 2.13/2.14
> > or else have gnome-python proposed for removal.
> 
> It seems now would be the right time to sort this out.  What route do
> the python people want to take?  Last time it seemed that everyone was
> heavily leaning towards proposing pyorbit for inclusion in the
> bindings in 2.13/2.14, if that's still the case, now would be the
> right time to do so.  Let us know if there's anything you need help
> with.

  OK, here's my personal opinion, from the point of view of probably the
only person that's likely to be willing to maintain pyorbit (please
correct me if I'm wrong).

  I think it's a good idea to propose it, as long as it doesn't mean I
have to do real development just because it's included. :P  Honestly,
given the lack of interest of the GNOME project in ORBit2, I don't think
it's profitable for the project that I invest much time with
development.  I can promise to review patches in bugzilla, maybe fix
simple bus, and push out releases, but that's it.  Anyway, I think
pyorbit is great, and it's stable, so not much development is needed
anyway.

  Regards.

> 
> Cheers,
> Elijah
> 
> [1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/release-team/2005-August/msg00166.html
-- 
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
<gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net>
The universe is always one step beyond logic.