On Mon, 2006-17-07 at 17:23 -0400, Tomislav Vujec wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 11:34 -0600, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: > > Having not seen a single code change in a year can be a _good_thing! > > I prefer the look and feel of evince but find myself frequently using > > ggv because evince can't handle things correctly. SO implying that an > > "actively developed" program is necessarily better for the users is > > ridiculous! > > I agree. But I don't think that anyone is suggesting that evince is > better than GGV because it is being actively developed. GGV is not being > _maintained_, therefore no one is doing any source code modification, > therefore it doesn't need an active source code repository. > > However, since someone might want to pick it up in the future, it is > being _archived_, not _removed_. > > I am sorry, but I just can't see how's your protesting against > _archival_ of GGV going to help either Evince or GGV? Or did you miss > the point? I don't think I missed the point. From the practical point of source maintenance there is no reason to oppose archive ggv. I am worried about the signal this sends to packagers though: GNOME considers ggv outdated and it should not be distributed anymore. > > > Well, I have received enough "works for us...must be your > > set-up...NOTABUG" responses or no response at all that I have given up > > on filing bugs on anything of the core GNOME desktop and developer > > platform. I am sure others feel likewise. > > Now this topic might need broader discussion, but it certainly doesn't > have anything to do with initial proposal. Neither of course has the suggestion that one should file more bugs against evince. And it was that suggestion I replied to. > There are just too many > modules in the gnome CVS to be able to navigate it in any useful way, > and keeping inactive projects there is not helping anyone. How do you navigate in Gnome CVS? I have never found the existence of modules that I am not interested in as hindering me in finding what I am looking for. Of course I realize that it already has been moved so I am really just wasting everybody's time. Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part