Re: Moduleset Reorganization -- Take two

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 12:43 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:03 +0100, Frederic Peters wrote:
> > Murray Cumming wrote:
> > 
> > > > > What is happening? Maintainers deserve to know.
> > > > 
> > > > Taking just the bindings, for example, you seem to have done this
> > > > without bothering to inform the affected maintainers
> > > > - Dropped all bindings apart from C++ (gtkmm and co).
> > > > - And volunteered gtkmm for slightly stronger API/ABI and
> > > > release-frequency rules.
> > > 
> > > Will the release-team please reply.
> > 
> > Sorry this is something I have to do and have been to busy at work
> > there last days. But to precisely answer your questions:
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >  - the bindings have not been dropped, there is C++, there is Python
> >    (which is now just pygobject + introspection), there is JS (twice),
> >    there is no C# (but http://live.gnome.org/GNOME+MonoHackfest2010
> >    has a plan), there is no Perl or Java, but they were not in the
> >    previous modulesets either
> 
> Yes, they were :http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentynine/Bindings
> 
> >  (and not being in the jhbuild
> >    modulesets didn't mean not being released alongside GNOME, for the
> >    Perl bindings).http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentynine/Bindings
> 
> This reminds me. I really don't like that the current module lists seem
> to be just links to the jhbuild XML files:
> http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointNinetyone/#Release_Suites
> 
> The list should provide clarity to _humans_, so this isn't good enough.
> Even without this vague reorganization, at the best of times, we have
> enough confusion about what is in the official GNOME module sets.
> 
> >  - there is no stronger API/ABI rules, but it's true we'd like to have
> >    gtkmm follow the schedule.
> 
> So, I'm free to do an ABI at gtkmm 3.2, for instance, as I was before?
> You don't seem to link now to _any_ rules for _any_ module sets at the
> moment, so you aren't communicating any guarantees to the world about
> API/ABI. The internets can now make up any nonsense and nobody can point
> them at the truth.
> 
> I am generally upset about the whole thing, because I helped make things
> clearer when I was on the release-team.

Don't expect me to follow any rules that you can't be bothered to tell
me. At the moment I don't consider gtkmm to be in any GNOME module set
anymore. I see no real GNOME release process any more.

-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com