Preparing GConf for the next generation (D-Conf related)

Philip Van Hoof spamfrommailing at
Tue Mar 8 15:34:51 EET 2005

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 :)

freax at lort:~/cvs/own/gconf-3 $ touch THIS_IS_NOT_GCONF_3
freax at lort:~/cvs/own/gconf-3 $ cvs add THIS_IS_NOT_GCONF_3
freax at lort:~/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,, ... 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,, 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,

More information about the xdg mailing list