Re: Meeting minutes (April 10th)

[Lucas Rocha <lucasr gnome org>]

Hi,

2010/4/14 Frederic Peters <fpeters gnome org>:
> Vincent Untz wrote:
>
>>  + split the desktop set in two: the core desktop and the applications.
>>    Over the years, the desktop has grown a lot and to a point where it's
>>    unclear why an application is in there while another is not.
>>    There is no clear definition of exactly how this split will be done,
>>    but one criteria that can help decide if whether a module has a brand
>>    or not. People from the user experience team, as well as maintainers,
>>    should help with the split.
>
> A parallel motive I forgot during the meeting is about the difficulty
> for the release team to handle >200 modules; what does the split means
> to us, workload-wise? i.e. how much care will we apply to the "apps"
> part?

I've been thinking about this. My initial thought is that the reason
we split the desktop moduleset is to allow us to focus on core
stability of our desktop. So, the "real" smoke testing would be more
focused on core desktop. As for the apps, I'd think that we'd expect
them to maintain compliance with all the usual requirements of an
official module.

In the long term, I expect release team to only build and smoke test
core desktop. The apps moduleset could even be maintained by separate
group that would ensure the apps are complying with requirements,
building and running as expected. Something like an official apps
directory or something. It's a bit weird to expect the release team to
build, test and maintain a moduleset with dozens of completely
different apps anyway...

So, in terms of communication, I plan to write something stating that
the split of desktop moduleset into core and apps is a first step
towards more focus on core desktop stability and that we expect the
apps moduleset to be maintained by separate group responsible for
ensuring that the apps are stable, complying with GNOME requirements,
high quality, etc.

Opinions?

--lucasr