headers
Daniel Veillard | 13 Mar 2003 15:28
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Minutes of the GNOME Board meeting March 11 2003


	  Minutes of the GNOME Board meeting March 11 2003
	  ================================================

Present:
=========

    Nat Friedman (chair)
    Miguel de Icaza
    Luis Villa
    Jody Goldberg
    Daniel Veillard (minutes)
    Glynn Foster
    James Henstridge
    Jim Gettys
    Jeff Waugh
    Bill Haneman
    Jonathan Blandford (10:)
    Tim Ney (15:)

Actions Done:
=============

  ACTION: Jody volunteered to work on producing a first draft of
          ABI rules for GNOME-2 releases; to get involvement from
          someone at Sun; and to make sure the draft get some review.
        => Jody finished a first draft and commited it to CVS, done
	   The next step is to have a review of it by the developpers
	   and the interested people.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Michael Meeks | 13 Mar 2003 19:09

Re: Minutes of the GNOME Board meeting March 11 2003


On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 14:28, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>         => Jody finished a first draft and commited it to CVS, done
> 	   The next step is to have a review of it by the developpers
> 	   and the interested people.

	Great work - where is the document / what module ?

	Thanks,

		Michael.

--

-- 
 mmeeks <at> gnu.org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jody Goldberg | 13 Mar 2003 19:56
Picon

Re: Minutes of the GNOME Board meeting March 11 2003

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 06:09:13PM +0000, Michael Meeks wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 14:28, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> >         => Jody finished a first draft and commited it to CVS, done
> > 	   The next step is to have a review of it by the developpers
> > 	   and the interested people.
> 
> 	Great work - where is the document / what module ?

releng/policy/abi-stability-changes.txt

I'll post to desktop-devel explaining what it is and isn't some time
next week when I can trust my net connection again.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jeff Waugh | 15 Mar 2003 17:48
Gravatar

Announcing the GNOME 2.2.1 Desktop and Developer Platform

                               Announcing...

               ==============================================
               The GNOME 2.2.1 Desktop and Developer Platform
               ==============================================

The GNOME Project is pleased to announce the immediate availability of the
GNOME 2.2.1 Desktop and Developer Platform!

The 2.2.x series is devoted to bugfixes, translations, and general polish of
our major 2.2 stable release. We strongly recommend upgrading to 2.2.1 in
particular, as it contains the Best Nautilus Release Ever. Faster and more
stable than ever before, the Captains of Nautilus have done it again. Bravo!

You'll find plenty of information about GNOME 2.2 in our extensive release
notes, linked from the 2.2 start page. You can also check out our gallery of
cool screenshots from dedicated GNOME users and testers!

                      http://www.gnome.org/start/2.2/

Enjoy!

- The GNOME Release Team

--

-- 
         "Spend your 'different points' wisely." - Havoc Pennington
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel Veillard | 20 Mar 2003 11:36
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

About the future of X (Windows)

  Speaking strictly personally...

  The XFree86 Board of Directors made public the fact that a split
of the X Windows software we are using for GNOME on most plateforms
is likely to take place [1]. Of course the success of the GNOME project
is tied to the availability of a well maintained X code base, and an
organization as supportive as possible of the needs for desktop deployment.
  I am not an X expert, but what I heard from various parties is
that like in the gcc/egcs fork such a split might be needed to speed up
the developments which are needed for GNOME and other projects and 
possibly get a more open process for maintaining the X code base. So
it seems it might be a good thing actually. However I think the foundation
membership should have the opportunity to voice concern or support on this
issue before the board makes any statement on this. So if you have
strong opinion about this I think this is the right time to argue
publicly about it :-)

Daniel

[1] http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000001.html

--

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard <at> redhat.com  | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
Permalink | Reply | 28 comments |
headers
Andy Tai | 20 Mar 2003 20:27

Re: About the future of X (Windows)

Shouldn't GNOME stay out of it as much as possible,
that GNOME and competitors (like KDE) both depend on
X11 and GNOME's involvement  may make matter massier. 
Unless, unless,  GNOME and KDE touch base first, both
being the users of XFree86, both sharing the interests
of having a stable base for free software GUI systems,
and a coordinated approach between KDE and GNOME is
taken in regard to the XFree86 issues. If both KDE and
GNOME desire XFree86 to stay unified, for example, the
political pressure should make XFree86 people think
twice about forking.  

--- Daniel Veillard <veillard <at> redhat.com> wrote:
>   Speaking strictly personally...
> 
>   The XFree86 Board of Directors made public the
> fact that a split
> of the X Windows software we are using for GNOME on
> most plateforms
> is likely to take place [1]. Of course the success
> of the GNOME project
> is tied to the availability of a well maintained X
> code base, and an
> organization as supportive as possible of the needs
> for desktop deployment.
>   I am not an X expert, but what I heard from
> various parties is
> that like in the gcc/egcs fork such a split might be
> needed to speed up
> the developments which are needed for GNOME and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 27 comments |
headers
Ciaran O'Riordan | 20 Mar 2003 21:29
Picon

Re: About the future of X (Windows)


I don't see forking as much of a problem but in cases
where Free Software isn't copylefted we need to keep
an eye on the licenses.

Ciaran O'Riordan

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:27:28AM -0800, Andy Tai wrote:
> Shouldn't GNOME stay out of it as much as possible,
> that GNOME and competitors (like KDE) both depend on
> X11 and GNOME's involvement  may make matter massier. 
> Unless, unless,  GNOME and KDE touch base first, both
> being the users of XFree86, both sharing the interests
> of having a stable base for free software GUI systems,
> and a coordinated approach between KDE and GNOME is
> taken in regard to the XFree86 issues. If both KDE and
> GNOME desire XFree86 to stay unified, for example, the
> political pressure should make XFree86 people think
> twice about forking.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller | 20 Mar 2003 21:58
Favicon

Re: About the future of X (Windows)

Well afaik a part (no idea how large/small) of this disagreement is the
wish by some to use technologies such as libxml for X. As such I feel
that GNOME should come out in support for the forces who wish to move X
forward by using existing infrastructure, like libxml, since it will
probably quicken development and increase opportunities for integration.

If you want to move the world forward you need to dare rock the boat
once in a while, the moment you stop daring to do that then your
stagnating and your end is at hand.

Christian 

On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 20:27, Andy Tai wrote:
> Shouldn't GNOME stay out of it as much as possible,
> that GNOME and competitors (like KDE) both depend on
> X11 and GNOME's involvement  may make matter massier. 
> Unless, unless,  GNOME and KDE touch base first, both
> being the users of XFree86, both sharing the interests
> of having a stable base for free software GUI systems,
> and a coordinated approach between KDE and GNOME is
> taken in regard to the XFree86 issues. If both KDE and
> GNOME desire XFree86 to stay unified, for example, the
> political pressure should make XFree86 people think
> twice about forking.  
> 
> --- Daniel Veillard <veillard <at> redhat.com> wrote:
> >   Speaking strictly personally...
> > 
> >   The XFree86 Board of Directors made public the
> > fact that a split
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 24 comments |
headers
Linas Vepstas | 20 Mar 2003 23:28

Re: About the future of X (Windows)


Well, what is the status?  Is there a large body of patches which
XFree86 has been ignoring/dissing?  In this case, there should be
some sort of 'experimental' branch where these can be integrated, 
tested & developed.   There are multiple versions of the Linux kernel,
and that seems fine.  Or is this a fundamental disagreement with
direction?  e.g. have the current maintainers said something like 
'we will never integrate such a thing, ever'?

Maybe this is competition between two proposals that implement
more-or-less the same function?  I participated in the X11 
double-buffer vs. multi-buffer debate, and while it was irritating,
either proposal would have been 'adequate', and the debate was more 
or less healthy, based on technical merit. 

If there are extensions that KDE would use, but Gnome wouldn't, (or vv)
what are they?  Why wouldn't both GUI's have a generic interest in the
same X11 extensions (maybe deploying on different timeframes)?

The debate seems to be about XML.  Exactly what benefit is there
in adding XML to X11?  In what sense does this 'move X11 forward'?
How do we get enough info to take sides?

--linas

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:58:32PM +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller was heard to remark:
> Well afaik a part (no idea how large/small) of this disagreement is the
> wish by some to use technologies such as libxml for X. As such I feel
> that GNOME should come out in support for the forces who wish to move X
> forward by using existing infrastructure, like libxml, since it will
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 23 comments |
headers
Ciaran O'Riordan | 21 Mar 2003 00:06
Picon

Re: About the future of X (Windows)

This line of debate is pretty irrelevant.  Telling eachother
our opinions on how to run other peoples software development
isn't achieving anything.

Instead of having one X-window-system project, we *might* soon
have two.  Do we have to choose which one to use? no.
Neither group is going to change the existing API.
A change of license is the only thing either project
could do that would effect GNOME.  If one does become
non-free, we simply use the other.

It is good to be aware of these things, the information Daniel
Veillard posted was useful but there is nothing to debate.
The merits and flaws of each project should be visable in the
coming months.

Ciaran O'Riordan
(If you are interested in the status, I'd suggest reading
the xfree86 ml archives (http://www.xfree86.org/mailman/listinfo)
and typing relevant words into internet search engines)

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 04:28:42PM -0600, Linas Vepstas wrote:
> 
> Well, what is the status?  Is there a large body of patches which
> XFree86 has been ignoring/dissing?  In this case, there should be
> some sort of 'experimental' branch where these can be integrated, 
> tested & developed.   There are multiple versions of the Linux kernel,
> and that seems fine.  Or is this a fundamental disagreement with
> direction?  e.g. have the current maintainers said something like 
> 'we will never integrate such a thing, ever'?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 22 comments |

Gmane