[this message is some days old, I'm having to send it now because my SMTP was broken for some days]
Hello, Sorry for the delay in responding, I left to Latinoware tuesday night, and I didn't think I'd be with no Internet connection for so long. On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 12:16 +0100, Holger Freyther wrote: > The main difficulty besides lacking time is meeting the quality standards of > the > WebKit project. Our WebKit/Gtk+ port is not using the LayoutTest regression > suite yet(I have started working on it, time is the limitation there), and we > have no GUnit coverage of the API. That is quite true, I'm sure. But it's kind of a chicken and egg problem: we need to go forward and keep/increase the developer mindshare we've got to gain more and better contributors. If we look like we're stagnant, it also hurts this goal. > This makes it very hard to judge what is going to break. Besides that we > should probably have more Gtk+ reviewers as Alp and me sadly don't have the > time for WebKit that would be needed. I didn't even know you were a reviewer, so forgive me for not mentioning you. I have seen some of your posts in bug reports I read. But yeah, we do need more reviewers in my opinion. Let me quote your other email here, too: > The other part is, it is really hard to judge what is Gtk'ish. E.g. our > current settings API is using GObject properties. Now we have a patch to add > a > thousand getters and setters as shortcut[1]. I agree, this is hard. This is one reason why I believe Christian Dywan would make a good reviewer: he does have a very good knowledge of the GTK+-api. Now, I usually don't think we need a lot of getters and setters, but others parts of the API are already providing them. I think we have time to make mistakes right now, though. Even if it would be best to have a stable API from the begining, GTK+ is breaking the API/ABI soon, and we can take advantage of that. > I think this is weird, e.g. one setter/getter and enum would be enough, or > even the gobject properites are good enough... so some sort of API feedback > of > key people would be good. I agree. But we need to get those people into a mailing list, and invite them to review API bits we are not sure about. I am pretty sure many GNOME-related projects members would be willing to be involved in such a mailing list =). We can even request one at lists.gnome.org! By the way, thanks a lot for reviewing/fixing/committing the WebInspector patch! That's a personal itch, since I'm a web developer and really want to stop using Firefox/Firebug =). See you, -- Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GNOME contributor: http://www.gnome.org/ _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
