Re: patches and responses...

Ok i went to the archives to find out what this was about.

First, i'm not a g-t maintainer.  Miguel even told me this
(yes i was most unimpressed at the time).  So  I guess
that makes Miguel the g-t maintainer (ewt has not done
anything on it for years), although he rarely seems
to add any patches to it.  George seems to have
been the most active in the area of late, but i think
that was out of necessity.  I've been moving about
a bit and didn't really have time to keep my tree
building when it kept breaking so i left it alone too.

I was working on a complete replacement to g-t, but
it got shelved, so I kind of gave up (it was for
the new features in g-l 2 zvt, which were put in
about a year ago, and still can't be used).  I
think i gave the code to cactus who said he'd play
with it, but i dont know how far it got.

Second, the specific patch in question seems to have
little value.  The shell maintains cwd, not the
terminal instance, which really only displays
the output of the shell (although not having
seen the specific patch, i could be mistaken).
Unless bash, etc were to take part in the session
saving, it would have little real value.

Anyway, I think the real problem is g-t has no real maintainer.

Most of the patches i get to zvt are usually questionable
too, or if i ask for followup information, people dont
give it, so i can't really follow them up either.
(and again, i haven't had a g-l build tree for quite a while).

On the other hand, its probably the most stable 
piece of code in gnome-core, and serious bugs have
got fixed when they needed to be fixed.

> On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 08:20:50PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > kevin lyda <> writes:
> > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:57:42PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > > > So my suggestion is to set up a cron job that mails the people listed
> > > > as authors of gnome-terminal once per week. Seriously.
> > > 
> > > er, i just want to submit a few lines of code, i don't want to spam
> > > people.  can i quote you on this?
> > > 
> > > wait, this is silly,
> > > 
> > > i think that's a very sorry state of affairs.  i don't want to rile people
> > > up, but i'm hearing from more than a few people that gnome development
> > > is very cliquish and closed.  that doesn't bode well for the project.
> > > when i went to uni i mainly used bsd boxen and after uni dug about and
> > > finally found freebsd.
> > 
> > Yeah I agree. The problem is that some packages are essentially
> > unmaintained. There are several forms of this: a) the original
> > maintainer disappeared b) there are so many maintainers that none of
> > them has clear responsibility so no one does anything c) no one is
> > sure who the maintainer is. gnome-terminal is probably b) or
> > c). 
> I have had exactly the same problem - I have two patches for
> gnome-terminal, and I've publicised them on this list, and put them in
> the Helixcode bugtracker, and I have had no response.
> I've copied this to the 3 people listed as primary authors in
> gnome-terminal.c - perhaps they could indicate whether they are still
> maintaining gnome-terminal?
> My patches are available in the HelixCode tracker as #1655 and #1654.
> cheers,
> Paul

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]