Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Mar 2011 18:59 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y And over the weekend, the saga regarding Canonical, GNOME, and KDE has continued. Lots of comments all over the web, some heated, some well-argued, some wholly indifferent. Most interestingly, Jeff Waugh and Dave Neary have elaborated on GNOME's position after the initial blog posts by Shuttleworth and Seigo, providing a more coherent look at GNOME's side of the story.
Thread beginning with comment 466077
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: in one comment
by Richard Dale on Mon 14th Mar 2011 20:34 UTC in reply to "in one comment"
Richard Dale
Member since:
2005-07-22

this comment on Aaron blog, extracted by Dave Neary tells a lot:

"CSD is really not a good example of how stuff development between Canonical and GNOME should work. I’m the person at Canonical who started CSD, but never finished it.

It started as just an experimental hack, and somehow got picked up as a “Canonical project”. Once that happened my immediate manager told me to stop committing code to GNOME git and do any further work on it privately in bzr.

For me this made developing it further much more difficult, because it was an extremely large and intrusive change into GTK+ source code and my manager didn’t want upstream developers to help me with at least peer code review.
"

It doesn't tell us a lot because CSD or 'Client Side Decorations' are not anything to do with app indicators. It was just an experiment, and as far as I can see a long way from ever being included in either Gnome or KDE. Whether such an experiment is commited to the Gnome repo or Canonical one doesn't actually matter much in practice.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: in one comment
by robmv on Tue 15th Mar 2011 16:01 in reply to "RE: in one comment"
robmv Member since:
2006-08-12

It talks about one example of how Canonical does not prefer to develop with the community, they forced the developer in this case to work privately

Reply Parent Score: 1