On Thursday 25 June 2009, Aurélien Gâteau wrote: > Suppose you are using a library which provides a class named Foo. This > library has been in use for 5 years, but you think the class really > should have been named FooBar. Would you ask the library maintainers to > break binary compatibility to get the class renamed?
this is not the same kind of situation, Aurélien, because this particular object (galago) uses a property (org.freedesktop) that we all share ownership of without having any legitimate claim to doing so. in most projects, when a library called FooBar enters the scene, it's inclusion into the platform is approved through consensus in that project. if there is no agreement to its inclusion, including it as such is unacceptable. just because the offending party keeps up their offending ways for some years does not change that in the least, and those who join them take on the risk of being put in a bad situation. so that is the part that went missing here. i actually completely disagree that galago has any claim to _any_ org.freedesktop name at this point. i implemented support for it because it has become widely used; that is a willing compromise that i have made out of a pragmatic respect for our users. now, i am willing to compromise _further_ and say "ok, galago has an org.freedesktop service name and that name is Notifications"; in return i want guarantees and commitment to process that this is not allowed to happen in the future. (have i said this enough times in this thread yet? i hope everyone's getting it by now. if not, let me know and i'll happily repeat it ;) -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
