Preparing GConf for the next generation (D-Conf related)
micke at imendio.com
Tue Mar 8 15:47:05 EET 2005
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> 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)
I guess you're just an impossible guy.
> Perhaps could the KDE, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, etc people now post
> their list of requirements? :-)
Yeah, that's the way I meant, *sigh*
> 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.
So maybe this isn't the job for you? My suggestion is that you then try
to get someone to do that part and say that you are interested in
helping out once the design is done.
Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com/
More information about the xdg