On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 20:10 +0000, Debarshi Ray wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 08:02:16PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 18:52 +0000, Debarshi Ray wrote: > > > Grep for "Future of Pocket in GNOME" from 24th August 2018 in > > > your > > > inbox. > > > > Which solves what? You're removing the Documents and Mail > > categories, > > you're removing Pocket support. > > Two things. > > First, we are talking about GNOME Documents, GNOME Online Accounts, > GNOME ..., etc.. We are talking about GNOME. > > If you are not going to respond to a thread that has run for six > months, on a topic that you care about, then I am sorry, I can't > assume good faith. Those who participated agreed that they don't have > time to work on Pocket, nor is the current state of affairs very > good. That's how we decided to drop it.
Having to constantly repeat that, yes, this was of interest to me was soul-sapping. > > Reading that mail you mentioned won't bring those features back. > > It's > > far from the first time you've wanted to remove Pocket support from > > GOA, as if it was a time sink, and a maintenance pain. > > > > I just don't understand the strategy of disabling/removing features > > and > > services, breaking apps on newer hosts. > > We have always, since the very first days when David Zeuthen was > around, pushed back against adding random accounts to GOA. We have > always said that the integration should be meaningful to a good cross > section of users, that there should be a default application or OS > component, etc.. > > This is nothing new. We eventually wrote it down as > https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeOnlineAccounts/Goals > > The Pocket integration doesn't do much. You yourself said that you > seldom use it. Mostly because the various integration points didn't exist. We (GNOME) were pining for a sharing interface which didn't, and still doesn't, exist, and epiphany maintainers didn't want to integrate the patch that was already written. > We regularly refuse requests to add random accounts to GOA. Just look > at the enhancement requests left open on Bugzilla. There are lots > more > that I have dealt with from other channels. It isn't fair that we > turn > down other requests, but keep Pocket in. I don't think that feature requests should be treated on the same level as existing, merged, features, and I don't see any merge requests for new account types, or providers. > It certainly is a maintenance burden. It's a burden when one has to > port away from deprecated GLib and WebKit APIs, it's a burden > when someone has to tweak the base-classes to accommodate yet > another quirky service provider or to just repay some technical debt > and clean things up. I wish that was brought forward earlier in the thread. Seeing as it's a maintenance burden, and it's impossible to write an application with some reasonable degree of expectation that Pocket support will be present in the host gnome-online-accounts framework, I think it best for it to be removed completely, so that applications don't try to use it in lieu of in-application independent support: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-online-accounts/merge_requests/18 > But it's a burden we can carry as long as we have someone committed > to > push it forward towards a better future. That future need not be in > two months time, but it has to be something that's more realistic > than > unicorns. Sorry, I don't understand what unicorns have to do with this discussion. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
