If only all of the energy spent on Gnome bashing would be spent on bugfixing, we'd have a perfect Gnome desktop by now. It's sad.
Gnome has moved to GitLab
161–170 of 212 posts
Re: Gnome has moved to GitLab
#162Now it's time for them to move to Node. They currently use the JS engine from Firefox 45 (over 2 years old) and are looking to move to 52 (almost 15 months old). Let's not forget that the update before that was from FF25 which was from 2013. It's past time to port your stuff to N-API and actually allow devs to have access to standard dev tools using standard dev practices. It would be a great change for Gnome devs to…
I've tried. Multiple times: https://github.com/gnome/gnode https://github.com/WebReflection/node-gtk https://github.com/endlessm/eos-knowledge-content-node https://github.com/Place1/node-gir The C++ V8 / Node API is actually more unstable than the equivalent SpiderMonkey one (there is supposed to be NaN, Node's wrapper abstraction library, but complex language bindings like I did requires a lot more than what's in Na…
[deleted]
Re: Gnome has moved to GitLab
#163Re: Gnome has moved to GitLab
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the other way around -- Qt wasn't GPL until 2005, GNOME started in 1997 in response to the non-free license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME#History
Ah, right, Qt wasn't GPL but it still "infected" apps with a copyleft-like provision.
It's not massively important, but I still think it's a good idea not to make a conclusion and then work your way back through history viewing with that lens.
GNOME was (and is as far as I know) part of GNU. The G stands for GNU -- GNU Network Object Model Environment. It actually had a CORBA ORB in it. Apart from the misguided idea of building a DE around CORBA (which, I admit, I thought was a fantastic idea at the time), the main reason for doing the work was that KDE was built on top of QT. KDE was GPL and everybody was completely happy with that part of it. The problem was that it was built on top of something that the FSF felt was incompatible with the GPL (I can't remember the exact issue).
GNOME uses the LGPL for its libraries and the GPL for its applications -- as per virtually every normal FSF project. One of the reasons there were more libraries in GNOME than you might ordinarily have was because it was intended to be a set of distributed components all talking together over TCP/IP. It's an enormous mistake, but as I am fond of saying, we're all young once.
Anyway, the point is that your notion that GNOME was somehow more pragmatic in terms of trying to avoid copyleft licenses is completely incorrect.
Re: Gnome has moved to GitLab
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone on the CC list for each bugzilla bug was notified 6 months ago that any bug without action in over a year would be frozen instead of migrated. What's the relationship between the existence of a bug in the codebase and the propensity of the bug reporter to respond to an email? > Personally, I think a lot of bugs in Bugzilla were just left open instead of closed due to a difference of opinion/vision but diff…
> What's the relationship between the existence of a bug in the codebase and the propensity of the bug reporter to respond to an email? It's not clear to me the question here, can you be more specific? Many bugs filed are not necessarily bugs in the codebase. I do wish we treated bugs and user support separately. I rather prefer the terseness of an engineering journal for what it is, but that tends to anger those exp…
> In Bugzilla, the only real option we had was "Closed: WONTFIX/NOTABUG" which almost always resulted in hurt feelings on the part of the bug reporter.
> I think the gitlab tooling allows us to be more diplomatic in closing bugs that are out-of-scope or not aligned with the goals of the project at large.
Can you give more details about this? Closing is closing and Bugzilla allows you to name your statuses whatever you want, so I don't understand how GitLab would change anything.
My experience is that GitLab (and GitHub) is worse in tracking bugs compared to Bugzilla (I've triaged about 10k reports).
I also think having the cut-off at 1 year is a bit drastic. I would have gone for 5 years.
Re: Gnome has moved to GitLab
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everyone on the CC list for each bugzilla bug was notified 6 months ago that any bug without action in over a year would be frozen instead of migrated. What's the relationship between the existence of a bug in the codebase and the propensity of the bug reporter to respond to an email? > Personally, I think a lot of bugs in Bugzilla were just left open instead of closed due to a difference of opinion/vision but diff…
> What's the relationship between the existence of a bug in the codebase and the propensity of the bug reporter to respond to an email? It's not clear to me the question here, can you be more specific? Many bugs filed are not necessarily bugs in the codebase. I do wish we treated bugs and user support separately. I rather prefer the terseness of an engineering journal for what it is, but that tends to anger those exp…
> I do wish we treated bugs and user support separately.
Why not have a buck tracking system where only contributors have write access and a second system where users can submit their reports?
Re: Gnome has moved to GitLab
#167Now it's time for them to move to Node. They currently use the JS engine from Firefox 45 (over 2 years old) and are looking to move to 52 (almost 15 months old). Let's not forget that the update before that was from FF25 which was from 2013. It's past time to port your stuff to N-API and actually allow devs to have access to standard dev tools using standard dev practices. It would be a great change for Gnome devs to…
It's actually not that far behind. GJS currently uses mozjs-52. They're working to update to 60 in 3.30 for this fall.
Re: Gnome has moved to GitLab
#168Too bad GitHub was out of the question just because it's not open source. I don't think there is a single platform out there that has done more for the open source community than GitHub. Most of the great OSS projects are on it and it helped democratize open source participation by providing a very nice UI and a set of robust tools that simply didn't exist before.
Why should github be the first choice and subject to exhaustion? Are there not compelling reasons to got with gitlab?
GitLab is a great first choice. I’ve been using it for 6+ years, heavily in the last 2, and it’s feature set is fantastic. Now I’m getting into the Auto DevOps features and it’s been a great experience.
Re: Gnome has moved to GitLab
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because Github is a closed-source company that can remove you, your repo, or your group at any time, for any reason. Committing to a hosted service is a bad idea (see: Sourceforge). That sort of thing isn't acceptable to a project like Gnome.
Just curious, has this ever happened? Were there any cases where github removed someone's repo?
GitHub removed a Shadowsocks library after being targeted by China's great cannon.
Re: Gnome has moved to GitLab
#170Highly unrelated (and lots of reasons missing): I was never a fan of Gnome and for years ended up "just going with LXDE instead" until I gave Budgie a try about 6 months ago. I have never been happier in my life.