Re: Moduleset Reorganization -- Take two

From: Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>

> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 15:52 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 13:53 +0100, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
>> > I'm interested to know what is going to happen about the module set
>> > reorganization now. We had the second proposal presented, we had a
>> > HUGE discussion about pros and cons with a lot of different views on
>> > this. So now what?
>> > 
>> > - Will this be implemented?
>> > - If so when?
>> > - Or will there be another iteration with another proposal and discussion?
>> [snip]
>> I am also very concerned that there has been no further announcement
>> about this, and no response to the concerns raised, though the recent
>> releases show at least some, though not all, of these changes.
>> What is happening? Maintainers deserve to know.
> Taking just the bindings, for example, you seem to have done this
> without bothering to inform the affected maintainers
> - Dropped all bindings apart from C++ (gtkmm and co).
> - And volunteered gtkmm for slightly stronger API/ABI and
> release-frequency rules.

As I noted some weeks ago [1], this is also the case for Orca and

Both were dropped without a warning to their maintainers (and as I
said on the mail, on both cases, IMHO, they both fit without problem
on the "Applications" moduleset).

This is somewhat disturbing. And although probably the interested
people could be blamed because they are not subscribed to release team
mailing list, if you take a look to the release planning [2], there
are a point to "Module inclusion discussion heats up", but nothing
about module dropping. So, a maintainer that have a module included,
by default will suppose that his module will not be dropped by the
release machinery.



API (apinheiro igalia com)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]