Re: Module proposal draft

["Elijah Newren" <newren gmail com>]

On 3/17/06, John (J5) Palmieri <johnp redhat com> wrote:
> This should go along with the schedule once we have something we wish to
> send to the gnome community so they can look it over and propose
> changes.

I like it overall.  It leaves me with a couple questions, though:

What about dependencies that modules want to add?  E.g. something like
epiphany adding iso-codes as a dependency.  Should it be rejected if
not proposed before 2.15.1?  What about the case where it's not an
external dependency (e.g. someone puts together an equivalent to
KUniqueApp to finally fix some lingering bugs and apps want to start
using it; is that only allowed if the lib is ready & proposed before
2.15.1?)  As phrased, your current proposal would rule it out but I'm
wondering if we shouldn't have a different rule for dependencies of
existing modules than for new apps.

As phrased, the proposal seems to suggest that module rejection only
occurs if apps can't meet the schedule.  It might be nice to mention
GEP-10 (http://developer.gnome.org/gep/gep-10.html).  Other ideas:
  - Might it be useful to have a scheduled time (a week or so) for
discussion to heat up about remaining modules?
  - Perhaps we could also have a week between this defined "heated
discussion" time and the module freeze in order to allow the release
team to schedule a meeting where we discuss the community feedback and
argue about what the consensus is?  :)

Thanks for working on this,
Elijah