[Fwd: Re: New procedure for proposed modules]

Slightly surprised that this is being held for moderation on gnome-hackers, and worried it will get lost in the ether, so bouncing it to r-t too.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: New procedure for proposed modules
Date: 	Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:04:03 +0100
From: 	Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
To: 	gnome-hackers gnome org
References: 	<1144090156 27826 11 camel localhost localdomain>

Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi all,

The GNOME Release Team, after some discussion, has come up with a new
procedure for getting modules accepted into the next release of GNOME.
It is our hope that the new procedure will lead to less confusion. This
is more of a tweak than an overhaul, taking into account lessons learned
from the past.
As I understand it, this implicitly makes module inclusion slightly different for applications and libraries. A question to ask if I've understood this correctly:

If you're an application, then you get your module synchronised with the release cycle by 2.15.1. If you're crackful, the community should voice dissent straight away; if it doesn't, then you're accepted. By 2.15.4, you can only be vetoed for technical reasons (ie. those in GEP 10).

If you're a framework (library, "su"-framework, etc.) , then the above applies, but you should get yourself used by other modules. By 2.15.4, you could be vetoed for technical reasons (GEP 10), but in general if you have widespread adoption by maintainers then that is a de-facto acceptance by the community. On the other hand, if you haven't got yourself used by other modules, it begins to look like the service-as-implemented isn't really wanted in GNOME.

To summarise, the community makes an initial decision on applications and libaries straight away, but libraries also have to prove themselves as useful in-the-wild.

Is that correct, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?



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