On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Owen Taylor <otay...@redhat.com> wrote: > > But it could also be confusing, and unless you are going to keep on > merging Metacity wholesale into mutter, there's not a big advantage in > having them in the same repository. 'git cherry-pick' has no special > intelligence over just applying a patch.
Right, it's mostly a branding thing. > How would you see packaging and installation working with your scheme? OS vendors would need to ship separate "metacity-compositor" packages. metacity-compositor would Depend: metacity. > I don't see how different programs (metacity and metacity-clutter) could > share the same GConf schema keys. What problems do you see? Basically mutter would depend on the metacity schemas being installed from mainline. Thinking about this a bit more, the end of this path is that the schemas, translations etc. are removed from the compositor branch, and it's really a separate project that depends on metacity installed. It just has a fork of the core code and installs a distinct binary name. Anyways I'm not opposed to any of 1) 2) or 3), I just wanted this option out there on the table to think through. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list