On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 20:37 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > (And, on a more general note, it's too bad that GNOME is so worried
> > about app compat that we're turning off new and shiny gvfs features.
> > What makes it especially ridiculous (and inexcusable) is that vendors
> > have the source already and can fix the offending apps.. and there's
> > always the unmount wrapper too. Kinda makes me wonder what the hell the
> > point is and why I bothered writing a gphoto2 backend at all.)
>
> Let me disagree: it's bad to give no notice
A working gphoto2 backend landed before the freeze (on 2/24); and the
initial work was committed even earlier (on 1/18) ...
> to people that things will
> break if they don't update something. We have to notify maintainers of
> the relevant applications. Let's give them 6 months.
.... however I don't want to paint this black and white because reality
often is a lot more complex. Also gio/gvfs is such a huge feature that
it requires some bending of the rules (in both ways as we have seen).
Also, the request came from Alex and he's the gvfs maintainer and all so
it's really his call.
But I can assure you it's pretty off-putting doing work that ends up,
effectively, not getting used. It's especially annoying because punting
this to the vendors is such an obvious choice. So I still maintain this
is the wrong decision. Anyway, I won't waste your time drama-queeing
more about this as we're going to remove this kludge for 2.23/2.24 and
work with applications authors to make sure their applications work well
with GNOME.
David
_______________________________________________
gnome-vfs-list mailing list
gnome-vfs-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-vfs-list
