Re: Module proposal draft

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Le vendredi 17 mars 2006 �6:57 -0700, Elijah Newren a �it :
> 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?

If it's considered as an external dependency, then I believe this would
be okay. If it's not... (see below)

>   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.

Yes, it could make sense to enable adding dependency until a bit later.
But before feature freeze too.

Can we guess that you'll work on something like KUniqueApp? :-)

> 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).

Right.

>   Other ideas:
>   - Might it be useful to have a scheduled time (a week or so) for
> discussion to heat up about remaining modules?

Agree. We should put this on the schedule (else it'll get forgotten).

>   - 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?  :)

Definitely agree :-)

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas press�