Alan Cox wrote: > So if Fedora, Ubuntu and every other Gnome using distribution also start > doing tons of private development
(Excluding Xgl, there was hardly "tons" of private development.) > then trying to jam it all in CVS > afterwards how do you expect Gnome to develop when all these variants > suddenely try and get merged and all overlap and clash. We don't. A lot of people have assumed that we're expecting to force the new menu code into the GNOME mainline at some point, which I guess is a reasonable assumption given what happened with Ximian Desktop, etc, but that was never the plan here. At the moment we're not even planning to ship it in SUSE 10.1 (which is 90% the same codebase as NLD10). The new menu is something we did for NLD, and if the community wants it too, then great, but we didn't do it with the expectation that they necessarily would. It's like Industrial was. > Nor does the committee argument stand up. It is perfectly possible to > post in advance that "we are going to do this, we've created a temporary > alternate repository for the work and if you want to join in or help > merge stuff back as it meets acceptability please sign up" Yes, I shouldn't have suggested that secrecy was a necessary part of the mix. The secrecy doesn't necessarily help. But how does it actually *hurt*? Yes, there are integration issues in some cases, but not in this case. Yes, there are code review issues as you mentioned in another message, but it's not like the GNOME community and/or Red Hat is reviewing the work we do on YaST or iFolder or any of dozens of other non-GNOME things, so that argument also feels weak. Novell has also been doing tons of GNOME work in the open, so it's not like we're trying to get a free ride off GNOME. So what exactly have we done wrong? -- Dan _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list