[Gajim-devel] "Fixing Broken Windows"
steve-e at h3c.de
Thu Jun 5 10:08:52 CEST 2008
We should schedule a meeting to discuss actions. We must decide on what
to do, who does it and when it should be done.
Wed. 11.07.2008 - 22:00 GMT.
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 17:06 +0200, Stephan Erb wrote:
> I am of the opinion that we should remove code from gajim if we know
> that it is not fully functional.
> Removing should be preferred over disabling it because we can never be
> sure that there aren't any uncaught side effects. It may also happen
> that some user enable it and report bugs in other areas (yes, code is
> that coupled) and we are unable to easily reproduce it.
> After removal the patches could be applied to separate branches. Users
> who really want it can use it and we make sure that the patch doesn't
> get lost.
> On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 12:55 +0200, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> > Stephan Erb <steve-e at h3c.de> wrote:
> > > When I look at gajim, I see the following broken windows:
> > > - OSX integration
> > It's totally broken and I'm for reverting it and doing it from scratch.
> See above.
> > > - OTR-Encryption
> > We can keep that in trunk and just remove the line that loads the OTR
> > module before release. It's possible that we get it fixed, but I really
> > doubt it,
> See explanation above.
> > > - GPG-Encryption
> > What's broken about GPG? Never had any issues with it.
> I was not precise enough here. It is working but the implementation is
> very complex, so no refactoring for 0.12 is planned.
> > But you forgot the biggest breakage: Session centric.
> I am OK with session centric and think we should definitely keep it.
> Things are shaping up and I haven't seen any big breakage in the last
> days. (Even unit tests are coming).
> Best Regards,
> Gajim-devel mailing list
> Gajim-devel at gajim.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Gajim-devel