Side issues [Was: Decisions we didn't intend to make]

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Federico Mena Quintero">

> "Should we allow gtk-sharp apps in the Desktop" is the wrong question.  

No, it's still an important question, particularly while the next one is
unanswered -- or if the answer to the next one is negative.

> "Should we allow apps which use the language bindings in the Desktop" is
> a valid question, though a very narrow-minded one if you happen to make
> it at all ;)  Not allowing the use of bindings in the desktop is more or
> less the same as saying that we don't dogfood our software.

That's a very fundamentalist approach to the question, and not one that I
think has practical value. If we end up having ten languages/platforms in
our Bindings release (ie. fully supported), should we accept software using
all ten of those languages/platforms in the Desktop suite? That ends up
being the important question here. Not whether we should have some generic
inarguable policy, but the practicality of having the central components of
our software maintained using ten different languages and platforms.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: This is an important discussion to have, but it is not
related to the discussion we are currently having. Let's not get caught up
on side issues.

> That was a good mail.  You reference something from your blog...
> 
>         The Developer Platform continues as is, while the Desktop
>         becomes the set of modules that define the interfaces — not the
>         applications — we provide to everything else running on the
>         desktop. Through both, we define what it means to integrate and
>         work with GNOME, rather than our current definition of what it
>         means to *be* GNOME
>         
> ... which is pretty vague.  What do you mean by the "interfaces"?  And "we
> define what it means to integrate and work with GNOME" --- is that
> certification as a checklist of things to do to write Really Nice
> Apps(tm)?

Integration points as well as APIs. It's not something we've concentrated on
much at all in the past, and is cause for some concern. I think this is a
much more useful way to recast the point behind the Desktop suite, so we can
actually have a healthy ecosystem of software around it instead of the inane
ONE TRUE WAY we're stuck with at the moment (inclusion in the Desktop suite,
because that's all there is).

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: This is an important discussion to have, but it is not
related to the discussion we are currently having. Let's not get caught up
on side issues.

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia           http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
 
                  Push the envelope, or push the daisies.