Re: [draft] Module decisions for GNOME 2.14

[Elijah Newren <newren gmail com>]

Looks good, just some random nitpicks, for the most part:

On 2/10/06, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> New modules:
>
>   + gnome-power-manager: people like it, but some mor work is needed,
>     and more integration should be done. It won't go in for 2.14, but
>     we'd like to see a good integration work starting soon for 2.16.
>
>   + libnotify/notification-daemon: it depends on libsexy. The general
>     consensus in the release team is that it's not appropriate to add
>     another library to our sets. It was also pointed out that maybe
>     libnotify should leave deeper in our stack (maybe in GTK+?). So
>     won't go in for 2.14.

I disagree that it's inappropriate to add another library to our sets;
I was thinking of writing one for 2.16 that I think we need, and I'm
sure there's other libraries that would be great to add.  Now, it may
not be appropriate to add libsexy, but that's much different.  Also, I
was mainly against its inclusion on the basis that it's really late in
the cycle and between this issue and UI guidelines for notifications
we may as well wait.

How about just saying that it depends on libsexy which there doesn't
appear to be consensus to include?  Possibly also mention (a) there
appeared to be some strong support behind it and we'd love to see it
integrated early next cycle (assuming the libsexy issue can be
resolved), and (b) it was actually an invalid proposal according to
the GEP as it was not proposed (nor even commented on) by the author
-- which is possibly part of the reason for the late discovery and
discussion of issues like libsexy.

>   + gnome-screensaver: there are some concerns about a possible
>     slowness. People pointed out that it was most probably related
>     to a fontconfig bug. We'll look in one week if everything is
>     okay. Will go in if it's the case.

You already said it was included in your other d-d-l email responding
to Davyd.  ;-)  Anyway, I'd prefer something like "in for now, but
we'll be watching closely to see if the issue has indeed been resolved
or if the module may need to be pulled"

>   + for reference, other proposed modules that were previously accepted:
>     pyorbit, deskbar-applet, fast-user-switch-applet,
>     gnome-python-desktop, pessulus, sabayon
>
>
> Issues in other modules:
>
>   + glib/pango: we'll ship the new version (2.10/1.12)

...as already previously announced on devel-announce-list...

>   + gtk-engines: it's up to the maintainers to decide what to do.
>     They'll look at the concerns that were sent on the lists and
>     state what is their decision.
>
>   + gnome-icon-theme: we fully support the adoption of the new icon
>     naming spec. However the change happened too late for this cycle. We
>     will ship with the 2.12 versions of gnome-icon-theme for GNOME 2.14
>     and encourage people to switch to the new version as soon as work
>     for 2.16 happen.
>
>   + GStreamer: current plan still is to go with 0.10.

I'd just stick with this, though maybe adding, " and keep an eye on
continued progress".  The other parts might be misunderstood, and
might come across as passing a value judgement on Ronald's awesome
work.  He was kind of upset about it previously given all his work on
the system, and he doesn't like the 0.10 decision, so let's just avoid
that.

>     Benefits of the
>     new version outweighs the not-yet-ported plugins. We encourage
>     GStreamer people to continue their work on the remaining
>     regressions.