On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 12:43 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:03 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote: > > Murray Cumming wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Will the release-team please reply. > > > > Sorry this is something I have to do and have been to busy at work > > there last days. But to precisely answer your questions: > > Thanks. > > > - the bindings have not been dropped, there is C++, there is Python > > (which is now just pygobject + introspection), there is JS (twice), > > there is no C# (but http://live.gnome.org/GNOME+MonoHackfest2010 > > has a plan), there is no Perl or Java, but they were not in the > > previous modulesets either > > Yes, they were :http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentynine/Bindings > > > (and not being in the jhbuild > > modulesets didn't mean not being released alongside GNOME, for the > > Perl bindings).http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentynine/Bindings > > This reminds me. I really don't like that the current module lists seem > to be just links to the jhbuild XML files: > http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointNinetyone/#Release_Suites > > The list should provide clarity to _humans_, so this isn't good enough. > Even without this vague reorganization, at the best of times, we have > enough confusion about what is in the official GNOME module sets. > > > - there is no stronger API/ABI rules, but it's true we'd like to have > > gtkmm follow the schedule. > > So, I'm free to do an ABI at gtkmm 3.2, for instance, as I was before? > You don't seem to link now to _any_ rules for _any_ module sets at the > moment, so you aren't communicating any guarantees to the world about > API/ABI. The internets can now make up any nonsense and nobody can point > them at the truth. > > I am generally upset about the whole thing, because I helped make things > clearer when I was on the release-team.
Don't expect me to follow any rules that you can't be bothered to tell me. At the moment I don't consider gtkmm to be in any GNOME module set anymore. I see no real GNOME release process any more. -- murr...@murrayc.com www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list