Re: Putting the 'Mono debate' back on the rails

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Hi,

Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006, à 16:40, Mike Kestner a écrit :
> On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 23:12 -0400, Joe Shaw wrote:
> 
> > > If those guarantees are more important to you than playing by the rules
> > > of the Gnome Bindings set, than Gtk# may simply be better of staying
> > > outside...
> 
> Starting to seem like it.  The other alternative is to alter the rules,
> which I believe is better for GNOME.  We didn't come to the discussion
> as a beggar.  We came with kickass applications in our wallet.
> 
> > Perhaps.  I can't speak for Mike, but as a user of those bindings I 
> > certainly hope compatibility isn't broken to appease the (IMO, overly 
> > strict) rules of the bindings set.
> 
> Ironically, this seems to be the only rule with any teeth.  

I'm no expert in the bindings suite, so bear with me.

These are the requirements for the bindings:
http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleRequirements/PlaformBindings

> There is no requirement to provide any specific library or even a
> minimal subset of the platform set.  Presumably, I could have proposed a
> Gtk# binding that bound only glib and it would be eligible for the
> bindings set.

"You should try to wrap the entire GNOME Developer Platform, but we do
not expect everybody to wrap everything. If you don't want to freeze
some of your GNOME Platform bindings then you should say that as early
as possible, and package them separately from your official GNOME
Binding modules."

I don't think bindings for only glib would have been accepted...

> My Gtk#-lite 2.16 binding would be allowed to break API in 2.18 as long
> as I make it parallel-installable, thereby breaking all existing
> Gtk#-lite applications unless packagers provide Bindings release 2.16
> with their 2.18 desktop.

It is allowed to break API, but it's really recommended to not break it.

"Obviously this should be avoided because it does make it more difficult
for applications to take advantage of new features, and because we
prefer to have fewer API versions from which to choose."

Bindings breaking API at each cycle would most probably be kicked out of
the bindings suite.

> I don't even have to bind 2.18 if I don't feel like it.  My 2.16 binding
> can ship as an official Gnome binding for 2.18.

It can, but from what I've seen, we're encouraging the bindings authors to
bind the latest API.

If the rules do not seem very strict, it's probably because it's not
possible to force people depending on changing API to do perfect
bindings on time.

> So... 
> 
> there is no schedule guarantee - I can provide my 2.16 in 2.18.
> there is no meaningful stability guarantee - I can break 2.16 in 2.18.
> there is no content guarantee beyond what is _not_ allowed in it.
> 
> We probably should drop this discussion, because even if we were to
> break our API and do the split, tomboy still probably doesn't get in.
> Just being in the bindings set doesn't really get app developers
> anything.  And from the earlier discussion, it sure doesn't sound like
> there's "consensus" to "bless" Gtk# as a Desktop set dependency.

People don't want Gtk# in the bindings suite to let tomboy get in.
People want Gtk# in the bindings suite because it rocks, because it
would make GNOME better, because they love it. If tomboy were not
proposed, we'd still want to see Gtk# in the bindings.

As Jeff pointed out, those are separate issues.

Let me say it again: the community really wants to see Gtk# in the
bindings.

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.