quote who=Rodrigo Moya
My list in the GEP includes all this and more ;)
yeah, I think your list + some evaluation team scrutiny could work much
better than looking for complete consensus on the mailing list.
That evaluation team *is* the release team. But the release team doesn't
make
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
For completeness, I should also note that there are two other big
problems involved which I don't know how to solve on a short timescale
(e.g. before 2.16):
- Havoc's recent points about identifying our target audience is
important in
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 01:12 -0800, Alex Graveley wrote:
*cough* tomboy *cough*
Tomboy is a great example. Its a great piece of software that does new
exciting things. If tomboy would be excluded from the desktop for some
technicality I would be very sad.
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 09:38 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 01:41 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
So, what
if we just set a list of things a module has to conform with to get
accepted and base our decisions on that?
For instance, we could have:
* uses at least basic
Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
- David's recent point in this thread about the desktop release set
not being so important also rings true to me. It's a binary in-or-out
yet there are lots of really rocking Gnome programs that are well
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 09:11 -0500, Dan Winship wrote:
Murray Cumming wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
- David's recent point in this thread about the desktop release set
not being so important also rings true to me. It's a binary in-or-out
yet there are
Hi,
I think our thinking historically has been that distro's who really care
about GNOME don't really 'care' that much about our list of stuff in the
desktop release as they have a pretty good idea themselves what they
want/don't want. Distro's which don't care much about GNOME on the other
hand
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
- David's recent point in this thread about the desktop release set
not being so important also rings true to me. It's a binary in-or-out
yet there are lots of really rocking Gnome programs that are well
integrated but aren't in the
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
On 2/16/06, Danilo Šegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Today at 8:24, Vincent Untz wrote:
We'll be trying something new for new modules in 2.16. I think most of
us agree that it didn't turn out well for this cycle.
On 2/16/06, Rodrigo Moya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
On 2/16/06, Danilo Šegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Vincent,
Today at 8:24, Vincent Untz wrote:
We'll be trying something new for new modules in 2.16. I think most of
What I'm seeing seems like lack of guidance along with the other points
you mentioned. For instance this release team reason:
+ gnome-power-manager: people like it, but some mor work is needed,
and more integration should be done. It won't go in for 2.14, but
we'd like to see a
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 20:06 -0500, Bryan Clark wrote:
Some proposed action items (from me):
* HIG has no real notification area guidelines
To me this doesn't mean g-p-m is doing anything wrong, just that
we design / usability people are behind the game and need to get
12 matches
Mail list logo
