On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 05:39:44PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: > As Emmanuele mentioned, the problem isn't so much that services will > disappear from under the applications (but it's a problem nonetheless), > it's that there was no communication explaining that applications > shouldn't have relied on GNOME Online Accounts in the first place, as > the functionality could disappear for reasons not caused by those > services, or applications.
You are talking as if the application maintainer and the GNOME Online Account maintainer are two disjoint entities. As if an active community of contributors have been jeopardized by the arbitrary will of the mythical GOA maintainer. That's false. [rishi@kolache gnome-documents]$ git shortlog -ns | head 1036 Cosimo Cecchi 357 Debarshi Ray 78 Alessandro Bono 76 Daniel Mustieles 68 Piotr Drag 59 Bastien Nocera 52 Kjartan Maraas 39 Marek Cernocky 36 Matej Urbancic 36 William Jon McCann Since everybody is concerned about the Online Accounts integration, let's look at gnome-online-miners.git. That's where the said integration lives. [rishi@kolache gnome-online-miners]$ git shortlog -ns | head 101 Debarshi Ray 6 Pranav Kant And I am just not going to bother digging up review statistics from Bugzilla. ;) I was also the only maintainer at least pretending to keep up with the GNOME schedule. There wasn't any active community. We regularly released with glaring bugs that some of our downstreams would consider blockers. Fedora releases would have blocked, had those bugs been known. They weren't known because very few people, if any, ever used the application, so nobody ever reported them. RHEL 7.x releases actually did block on those bugs. That's how those eventually got noticed, fixed and backported. Boy, did I spend hours diligently backporting all those fixes, spinning tarballs, doing downstream builds. Sometimes the backports went across three or four stable branches - that's how glaring and old some of the bugs were. Not a soul cared. These bugs were regressions introduced by the occasional patch that would get merged, or by changes in our JavaScript stack, or something else. The upshot being that the reviewers themselves weren't using the application much, or didn't have enough time to diligently review the patches; nor did it have any users in the wider GNOME community and beyond. It was also clear that the GNOME designers weren't that excited about GNOME Documents any more. Yes, I could have started by listing all the reasons behind why Documents is considered a dead-end. I didn't do that, so I am very sorry about that. However, I did give a brief background in my very next email to this thread. Cosimo, Michael, Jakub and Allan were all part of the discussions about it's future. But then, I haven't yet found anybody honestly asking why we gave up on it. Instead people went ahead and drew whatever conclusions they wanted to draw. I find that odd. It's not like this is the first time we have dropped things from GNOME Online Accounts. Back in 2017 [1] we had dropped Telepathy. I had written a wall of text explaining that decision. Guess how many replies that thread got. Surely, Telepathy has had a lot more users in its time than Documents. So, I do find it strange that people are suddenly coming out of the woodwork passionately fighting for the survival of GNOME Documents. [1] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2017-October/msg00040.html _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list