Re: gnome-vfs/GIOChannel for parsing

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:28, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:12:46AM +0000, Michael Meeks wrote: 
> > [1] - and yes I know you can point to a list with millions of lines of 
> >       discussion about twigs - while people are burning great chunks of
> >       forest elsewhere undiscussed.
> You decided you don't like cross-desktop specs and don't care about
> GTK.  So you aren't reading gtk-devel-list, you aren't reading
> xdg-list, you aren't reading bugzilla mail for GTK, etc.  Then you
> complain about how you don't know what's going on in these areas.

	Wait - you decided I don't like cross-desktop specs, etc.

	I was rather hoping that decisions that affect Gnome dramatically,
particularly in the region of IPC - which you may notice I've been
slogging my guts out making work for the last several years - _might_ be
discussed / mentioned / pointed out to me on a _GNOME_ list.

> If you aren't going to participate in GTK design discussions, as you
> never have, then you aren't going to know anything about them.

	I spot a more acute relational breakdown here than I had suspected.
Reading the gtk+-devel list archive for the last few days demonstrates
otherwise - you're being unreasonable. It's true there are ~3k unread
mails in my gtk+ folder - but I was mostly hoping to hack on Gnome.
People shying from the archive, might remember me participating in the
file selector design discussion in Boston - hopefully to some lasting

> Do you know how I follow GTK development? I read the bugzilla spam,
> and I'm on gtk-devel-list. Matthias Clasen, Soeren Sandmann, Tor
> Lillqvist, James Henstridge, and Kristian Rietveld are all larger
> current contributors to GTK+ than anyone at Red Hat other than Owen.
> None of them work for any GNOME-related company. Somehow they manage
> to track GTK+ development and get patches accepted.


> The facts are: every major planned feature for GTK+ 2.4 is on the web
> page, posted to gtk-devel-list, in bugzilla, and in many cases there's
> prototype code in CVS. Name a GTK+ 2.4 "forest" that isn't publicly
> posted and I might think of taking you seriously.

	I'm thinking of big sweep direction, not feature addition - strategy.
eg. "writing Bonobo out of Gnome" - the things that are not on the
web-pages that I have read.



 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

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