Re: State of gvfs in Gnome 2.21

["Lucas Rocha" <lucasr gnome org>]

Hi,

2008/2/12, Luis Villa <luis tieguy org>:
> On Feb 12, 2008 8:36 AM, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> > Despite all the hard work, it doesn't look like the new Nautilus will be
> > ready for GNOME 2.22 without regressions.
> >
> > Why aren't we talking about punting it until GNOME 2.23/24? We've never
> > allowed this kind of thing before - punting would be entirely normal.
>
> We once delayed a release for a gtk release which wasn't yet stable,
> IIRC- the porting was too far along to revert the porting work in a
> timely manner (which I'm guessing is also the case here) and the
> regressions were too large to do a .0 (which also seems to be the case
> here, though I haven't followed it closely.)
>
> But agreed that the right thing to do is to delay the release rather
> than release a .0 with substantial regressions (as I ranted on a bit
> at my blog and on gnome-bugsquad.)

I agree. We shouldn'd discard the possibility of either postponing the
gvfs-based Nautilus or delaying the .0 release if needed. Obviously,
releasing Nautilus with too many or some big regressions is not a good
plan.

Personally, I'm more in favor of postponing the gvfs-based Nautilus
because delaying our release can bring more problems for us and for
the projects relying on our schedule.

Hence, it would be good:
- to have a plan with the list of regressions we can't accept for 2.22
- to hear (mainly) from Alex if this plan is feasible

--lucasr