On Mon, Jan 28, 2019, 00:00 Debarshi Ray, <rishi...@lostca.se> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 09:26:05PM -0800, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:04 PM Debarshi Ray <rishi...@lostca.se> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 11:24:00AM -0800, philip.chime...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > 2. It's not possible to discontinue support for services X, Y, and Z > from > > > > GOA, and yank the rug out from under apps that expected (even if that > > > > expectation was wrong) it to be part of a stable platform. > > > > > > You mean like the time when GJS broke GNOME Documents? > > > > > > > Sorry, I don't know what particular event you're referring to. > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=791613 > > > GJS is even different from GOA because, as pointed out earlier > > in the thread, GOA is not part of a Flatpak runtime but is still used by > > Flatpak apps. > > One, Flatpak is still not the primary way users consume applications. > > Second, being part of the runtime is irrelevant for a session D-Bus > service like GOA. The service is meant to live on the host. There were > no D-Bus or C API breaks. What changed is the metadata associated with > an account, which applications introspect at runtime anyway. > > Third, with Flatpak, a newer version of an application has to be ready > to run on an old host anyway, and the old host might not have the GOA > feature that your new application wants. Apps need to be resilient > about that. Hence the introspection. > > > Are you seriously suggesting that because I committed some mistake, you > > should insist on the right to make the same mistake with eyes wide open? > > And what mistake am I insisting on making? > > > Literally just a few messages before mine in the thread, we heard about > > deja-dup. > > And what about Deja Dup? GOA screwed over Deja Dup? > > > For what it's worth, I don't appreciate the ad-hominem attack here. I > > intended to *help* you by trying to break the cycle of people ignoring > your > > problem and yelling at you about theirs, and vice versa, but if you > prefer > > to continue yelling then suit yourself. > > You are trying to help me by making unsubstantiated innuendoes? > > You said: > > > PS. Yes, count me among the completely surprised that GOA is not an API > > that apps should use. It was not communicated anywhere close to the level > > it needed to be. That's on GNOME, not on those app developers. This is > why > > it's our problem. > > If nothing else, you are driving a wedge between "GNOME" and "those > app developers". > > In the context of this thread, it also sounds as if there exists a > whole bunch of application developers whose hard work was thrown away > because of me. > > You talk about communication. The very first version of the GOA home > page, created in August 2012, said: > > "The objective of GOA is to provide a central place where a set of > online accounts (defined by the OS/distributor) can be configured > for use with core applications. In UX terms, GOA provides a static > list of online accounts that can be setup by users (through the > Online Accounts panel in System Settings). These accounts will then > be used by core GNOME applications. > > While third party applications can access the accounts set up > through GOA, this is not its primary goal, nor does it set out to > enable third party applications to add online accounts of their own. > There are several reasons for this: > ... > ... > " > > See: > > https://wiki.gnome.org/action/recall/Projects/GnomeOnlineAccounts?action=recall&rev=1 > > That text was recently improved and lives on its own page, linked > multiple times from the main landing page: > https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeOnlineAccounts/Goals > > The current landing page says: > "GNOME Online Accounts Single sign-on framework for GNOME. It aims to > provide a way for users to setup online accounts to be used by the > core system and applications." > > See: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeOnlineAccounts > > We don't have an active PR team at our disposal to send out weekly > press releases - it's not like the GNOME Engagement Team has a ton of > resources. Blogs were written to address the most pressing issues of > the day. > > There doesn't exist a single application developer whose work was > thrown away without any prior notice or discussion. > > The Telepathy support was removed after multiple Empathy and Telepathy > maintainers publicly and repeatedly asked people not to use the > stack. The removal was publicly announced early in a development > cycle. Not a single soul complained when this happened. > > Michael Catanzaro, Allan, Jakub and I have had multiple discussions, > often over email, with Felipe Borges, author of GNOME's Pocket client > [1], and Bastien over the years. The most recent discussion was about > toggling the Autotools and Meson options to not build the Pocket > extension by default, accompanied with a public announcement. That's > supposed to happen after March. No code was to removed until October. > > Michael Catanzaro, Allan, Jakub and I had similarly discussed the > GNOME Documents situation with Cosimo. > > You are tilting at windmills here. As if, I, the GOA maintainer, > screwed myself, the GNOME Documents maintainer. That's how bizarre > this situation is. > > [1] http://felipeborges.github.io/bolso/ Nope, nope, nope. I'm not going to continue this discussion. Good suggestion from Britt to take a break. I thought I could help but no. Good luck.
_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
