On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:19 +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote: > I'm just saying that you shouldn't call it GConf-3 (not anywhere) > because all of the sudden someone is going to read it on a mailing list > and think that it's indeed GConf-3. Or even worth, people start using > your version and when the GConf maintainers start working on the real > GConf 3 (unless it's in fact the fork you've created) there will be a > huge bit of confusion involved.
I hope this way it's more clear :) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/cvs/own/gconf-3 $ touch THIS_IS_NOT_GCONF_3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/cvs/own/gconf-3 $ cvs add THIS_IS_NOT_GCONF_3 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/cvs/own/gconf-3 $ cvs commit (done, btw) > Hmm .. I still haven't seen any comments (from you or others) on the > requirements from KDE, OpenOffice.org, ... Without them it would be a > waste of time at this point to do major redesigning in GConf to meet > their (unknown) requirements. Perhaps could the KDE, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, etc people now post their list of requirements? :-) I can't guess that list for them since I'm just a user of their softwares. Not really a (application) developer. I do develop GNOME applications. So I have an idea of the requirements for that. And IMHO has GConf, at this moment, all (most of) the required features for GNOME application development. -- Philip Van Hoof, Software Developer @ Cronos home: me at freax dot org gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org work: philip dot vanhoof at cronos dot be junk: philip dot vanhoof at gmail dot com http://www.freax.be, http://www.freax.eu.org _______________________________________________ gconf-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gconf-list
