On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:53 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote: Hi Martyn,
Don't be confused: most of this reply isn't directed at you personally. > On 23/02/10 16:09, Dodji Seketeli wrote: > > Le mar. 23 févr. 2010 à 14:12:47 (+0000), Martyn Russell a écrit: > >> Actually, I think that the Red Hat maintainers of the toolkit had an > >> interest in stability (for ISVs) and that stifled development. As > >> such developing anything in GTK+ takes a lot longer than it should > >> and that's why it is always hard to get into development there or to > >> fix something. This has long been the internal politic of GTK+. > > > > Wasn't it possible to develop the new things in branches to showcase > > your ideas and tell the world about those new features? > > Yes and it still is, see the MPX branch, the GSEAL work was also started > in a branch and many things are done that way. > > > Just to make things clear, this is a real question, not an attempt to > > point finger or anything like that. > > > > I am asking because, even in layers like X.org where compatibility is > > key, trying things in branches and showing the world proved to have > > worked quite well. > > When talking to some of the core maintainers, they often say they want > to refactor things internally in GTK+ to make maintaining it easier and > getting new people into the toolkit easier. What are we waiting for? The Gods? Ideology? Let's be serious.. > Just today on #gnome-hackers, I saw someone interested in getting > into GTK+ development and he said it was really hard. I agree. I agree with this person too. It is extraordinary hard: that's not good. Not at all. > Johannes makes a really good point too. At some point you could probably > say that GTK+ was _THE_ exciting project to work on and a lot of code > got in that should have had more reviews and perhaps that's why it needs > cleaning up in places now. Comon! How many years of cleaning up does a team need unless it admits that its entire architecture was one big design flaw? I don't believe that GTK+ needs more cleaning up. Its architecture isn't that flawed at all. Let's not be childish and let's be honest about our technology; its future. Not even a mission to the moon ever needed as much years of cleaning up as GTK+ seems to need if you do follow the logic that the GSEAL work is the only big thing a group can do within a year. I think it's untrue to say that GTK+ needs more years of cleanups before it can start receiving innovation. Let's stop being children. No matter how impolite my statements are. > GTK+ has also been too exposed to change some of these issues (hence > the GSEAL work). I applaud the GSEAL work. It just hasn't been enough for a year or more of work on GTK+: no matter how you look at it, GTK+'s innovation is stalled. To the point that it gets ridiculous. If that statement takes all of my karma, whatever karma means, then it does. So be it. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list