My intuition is that Ubuntu should definitely maintain its own GNOME stack.
Since Unity is still largely based on GNOME technology but we may not
agree every decision of GNOME upstream.
And Debian's view point of GNOME upstream may different from us and
they don't maintain Unity at all.
But for
Le 16/10/2012 23:24, Robert Ancell a écrit :
In conclusion I don't think we have anything to be worried about with
GNOME OS at this point and by the time it did matter we may be
sufficiently different anyway that it doesn't matter.
Seems like GNOME OS is managing to get any discussion off-track,
On 17/10/12 18:25, Allison Randal wrote:
On 10/16/2012 03:56 PM, Robert Ancell wrote:
My point is we *shouldn't* take the time to update Debian as it is all
cost and no benefit. If you think of Debian as being directly upstream
from Ubuntu it sounds good but in reality it is a more sidestream.
On 17/10/12 18:02, Martin Pitt wrote:
Robert Ancell [2012-10-17 10:48 +1300]:
- By updating packages in Debian and waiting for them to flow down to
Ubuntu kills our velocity. It can change the time from upstream release
to being in Ubuntu from hours (which is too long in my opinion) to days.
Le 16/10/2012 06:08, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
On 15 October 2012 13:50, Sebastien Bacher seb...@ubuntu.com wrote:
That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we stay on
stable GNOME this cycle, the reasons are (in random order):
Well you've been following GNOME development for
Hiya,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 07:50:04PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Hey,
That's a classic, we usually review our plans for GNOME for the
next cycle.
That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we
stay on stable GNOME this cycle […]
Ah, I think this is quite an
Le 16/10/2012 11:36, Iain Lane a écrit :
Given the way that both projects are now design led, and the fact that
it's design decisions / philosophies that are driving many of these
difficulties, it would seem prudent for the respective design teams to
try to work together a bit more closely. I
Le 16/10/2012 06:08, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
On 15 October 2012 13:50, Sebastien Bacher seb...@ubuntu.com wrote:
That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we stay on
stable GNOME this cycle, the reasons are (in random order):
Well you've been following GNOME development for
On 12-10-16 05:47 AM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
- GNOME started to focus on GNOME OS and give less importance to what
distributors think or do. It's a fair choice, they think they should
better focus on building the best system they can do and should not
compromise to accommodate others. I'm not
On 16 October 2012 14:14, Robert Bruce Park robert.p...@canonical.com wrote:
Also, last I heard, 'GNOME OS' is not intended to obsolete distros, it is
intended to obsolete jhbuild as a way for developers to hack on the
absolute-cutting-edge-git-snapshots of GNOME.
The GNOME OS discussion in
Le 16/10/2012 20:14, Robert Bruce Park a écrit :
Whoa whoa whoa... I never hear about Fedora or SuSE having these
clashes with GNOME. Are you sure the problem is really with GNOME and
not with us? Maybe this problem isn't GNOME doesn't cooperate with
distributions but rather Canonical doesn't
Le 16/10/2012 20:14, Robert Bruce Park a écrit :
Just a thought. I would like to see better cooperation, personally ;-)
Right, I think we all do and ideas on how to improve cooperation are
welcome ;-)
Also, last I heard, 'GNOME OS' is not intended to obsolete distros, it
is intended to
On 16/10/12 23:47, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Le 16/10/2012 06:08, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
On 15 October 2012 13:50, Sebastien Bacher seb...@ubuntu.com wrote:
That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we
stay on
stable GNOME this cycle, the reasons are (in random order):
On 16/10/12 22:36, Iain Lane wrote:
Given the way that both projects are now design led, and the fact that
it's design decisions / philosophies that are driving many of these
difficulties, it would seem prudent for the respective design teams to
try to work together a bit more closely. I
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Robert Ancell
robert.anc...@canonical.com wrote:
- By updating packages in Debian and waiting for them to flow down to
Ubuntu kills our velocity. It can change the time from upstream release
to being in Ubuntu from hours (which is too long in my opinion) to
On 17/10/12 11:28, Ma Xiaojun wrote:
- By leaving some packages to be fully maintained by Debian we easily
end up shipping old packages without noticing it. I was quite shocked
when I updated the version tracker [1] how many out of date packages we
ship. If we're going to ship a quality
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Robert Ancell
robert.anc...@canonical.com wrote:
My point is we *shouldn't* take the time to update Debian as it is all
cost and no benefit. If you think of Debian as being directly upstream
from Ubuntu it sounds good but in reality it is a more sidestream. If
Robert Ancell [2012-10-17 10:24 +1300]:
- It's about standardising the stack from the kernel to the
applications.
Right, that was mostly what I've heard about the idea as well.
This is mostly a non-issue for Ubuntu as the stack that is being
standardised on is pretty much what we have in
Robert Ancell [2012-10-17 10:48 +1300]:
- By updating packages in Debian and waiting for them to flow down to
Ubuntu kills our velocity. It can change the time from upstream release
to being in Ubuntu from hours (which is too long in my opinion) to days.
Yes, I agree that this is an issue at
Le 15/10/2012 19:50, Sebastien Bacher a écrit :
- the new version of libraries might have APIs our app writers might
want to use
On that I would note that we should keep a ppa for the unstable serie
packages, open to contributions. Most app writer do want to target users
of stable users out
I'm a fan of this for quality reasons.
Shipping very latest GNOME used to give Ubuntu a cutting edge feel, but
nowadays, shiny new Ubuntu features tend to come from Unity and
friends. The interesting new user-facing changes that GNOME brings are
(mostly) in Shell. So I don't think the
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Jeremy Bicha jbi...@ubuntu.com wrote:
The other big example this cycle is ibus. GNOME 3.6 doesn't work
properly without a not-released-as-stable version of ibus.
http://pad.lv/1045914
Have you contacted with IBus upstream?
Developers of IBus are mostly using
On 16/10/12 15:08, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
One element to think about also is how that would impact the GNOME remix if
the plan there is not ship the latest GNOME...
Seb, I blame the remix idea on you. ;) Anyway, if the GNOME remix
becomes an official flavor, I was hoping to then ask for
23 matches
Mail list logo
