| 1 |
On 07/07/11 15:36, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> And what about gnome? Does that not impose a fantastic testing burden, |
| 4 |
> alongside which gnome-mplayer is small in comparison? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Yes, but the value of one's time isn't relative. If you'll allow me to |
| 7 |
make up the numbers, just because it takes a month of time to test Gnome |
| 8 |
doesn't mean that the day it would take to test gnome-mplayer is any |
| 9 |
less valuable. In those eight hours you can still drink the same number |
| 10 |
of beers, read the same number of books, or -- hell, in this case -- fix |
| 11 |
the same number of bugs in other packages. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> How about the devs relook at this and do it sanely. When the major |
| 15 |
> consumer of gtk+ (gnome itself) has a stable gtk+-3 very in stable, |
| 16 |
> then other packages follow suit, not before. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I don't think anyone would disagree that this is nice to have; you just |
| 19 |
have to find someone to do the work. Writing ebuilds is fun, setting up |
| 20 |
test environments and recompiling all day is not. |
Archives