On 10/24/2009 11:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > DJ, > I hope you didn't think that I was asking you do do the above. I was > saying > what the design guidelines for the developers should be. > > -- Bruce > I'm not sure I understand your comment above. It is open source software after all, so you *are* asking me to do the above -- and rightfully so. :-) That responsibility falls on anyone who chooses to send in patches to fix upstream issues instead of just filing bug reports. I neither read direction toward me, nor took any offense to your comments if that's what you were getting at.
I was just making an observation about Gnome development in general. The expectation of a shared libexec directory, and a few other assumptions in there really bug me. I just used my recent GDM patch as an example of what not to do. I didn't realize my error until you highlighted it above, and that patch is a shining example of ignoring the rules above IMO. Incomplete patches can be as troublesome as the original problem, and in many cases, more so. There are several other examples in current Gnome. I do, however, fully intend to follow the guidelines above, and use them as justification going forward, so that these kinds of issues will be fixed as *properly* as is possible within the Gnome community (and the constraints of their nearly impossible 6 month release cycle). -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
