xc/programs considered harmful

[Jim Gettys]

Leon,

You may feel the following is splitting hairs but...

The X.org Consortium had such procedures in place; but the X.org
Foundation is a new organization, and such procedures should be
discussed publicly and ratified.  A majority of the active participants
are *not* familiar with how the old X.org organization ran (myself
included).

We must have public discussions of how we want to operate, and cannot
presume that everyone is familiar with the previous processes followed
in an organization to which they were not involved.

That being said, a process that involves the architecture group makes
sense for large parts of the distribution (e.g. public interfaces),
though it isn't entirely obvious to me that it need apply to the named
applications, which do not affect the architectural behavior of the
system, and fall more in the purview of what the release wranglers serve
in the new organization.

				Regards,
					- Jim



On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 13:51 -0500, Leon Shiman wrote:
> Daniel -
> 
> There  is a procedure already in place for deprecating ANY code. It is part 
> of X.Org's commitment to stability of the code base.  The Architecture Group 
> is the place to start; under Paul Anderson's chairmanship they are empowered 
> to review and propose changes. You should write xorg_arch at x.org.
> 
> It is also inappropriate to propose cdhanges - much less changes of this 
> magnitude - just prior to the Christmas-New Year's holidays, which affect 
> many active members of the community.
> 
> I suggest you start by reviewing standing policies with Paul Anderson.
> 
> Leon
> 
> on Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:45:51 +0100 Daniel Stone wrote:
> >
> >On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 11:40 -0500, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> > I understand that xeyes/xlogo/xedit/etc are all neat and whatever, but 
> I
> >> > don't see their place in the monolithic tree, and I think we can set a
> >> > great precedent by moving the maintainence of these tools to the 
> modular
> >> > tree, if they are still required, and then that can become the 
> canonical
> >> > upstream source.
> >> 
> >> I don't think your first message was explicite about adding them to the
> >> module tree, which means they are just moving, not being purged from the
> >> universe.
> >> 
> >> Which modular project would these be moving to?
> >
> >If people wanted to maintain them, fd.o has an 'xapps' repository.
> >_______________________________________________
> >xorg mailing list
> >xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> >http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xorg mailing list
> xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg