[HEADS-UP] D-Bus 1.4.0 by the end of this week!
mzqohf at 0pointer.de
Mon Aug 23 11:33:34 PDT 2010
On Mon, 23.08.10 19:06, Christian Dywan (christian at lanedo.com) wrote:
> > Well, my reading of this discussion of this was that in the end the
> > general thinking on this ML was that the negotiation should continue
> > to use seperate commands for seperate features instead of mingling
> > this all into one line. There were a handful of people who disagreed
> > but I understood that they were overruled?
> > I am not convinced we should reopen the discussion now as I feel we
> > already discussed this to death.
> The voices seemed mostly equal on both sides to me, which is why I
> emphasised that Colin was in favour of the changes.
Well, I think Colin buckled after Havoc was in favour of the current
scheme. Colin, say something! did I misunderstand you?
> > Well, to be frank, I'd rather see this implemented with the already
> > existing dbus_connection_can_send_type() call.
> Conveniently, the patches for maybe on top of the current negotiation
> are already in that bug, since I implemented that separately. So
> in practical terms we could go forward reviewing those.
I am afraid I'd rather see this post 1.4.0 now. If there had been
discussion started about this two weeks ago, then yupp, this would have
been easy. But right now I feel more that I want 1.4.0 out than delay it
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
More information about the dbus