On Thu, April 4, 2013 10:58 am, Ma Xiaojun wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Andre Klapper <[email protected]> wrote: >> Likely a long time for an unmaintained module that has not seen any code >> activity for years: https://git.gnome.org/browse/pygtk/log/ >> >> Maybe you have some luck to find a developer on >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/python-hackers-list . >> However I don't expect anybody to create a new tarball of pygtk that >> distros would pick up and ship, so not sure how much sense this makes. >> >> This touches a general unsolved issue: Sharing the maintenance burden of >> deprecated modules across distributors who ship enterprise / long-term >> support versions. Same problem e.g. for gnome-vfs, libgnome, ... >> I guess if somebody offered maintainership, nobody would refuse. > > It's all logistics issues on your side; I don't care about the > community dynamics. > I just care how GNOME community as a whole treat third-party developers.
Community dynamics are an important part of how GNOME functions generally and all discussion here should be mindful of that fact. Harsh and negative tone frustrates productive discussion and often causes unnecessary reaction traffic which just wastes people's time. Please be more considerate in your emails to this list. karen > > It boils down simply to a trivial reference counting issue. "People > urge to have this bug fixed " has nothing to do with "people want to > take over PyGTK". > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
