olive vs bzr-gtk

[Jelmer Vernooij]

[CC-ing the mailinglist, maybe others would like to comment as well]

On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 12:38 +0200, Szilveszter Farkas wrote:
> I've begun with the Olive - bzr-gtk merge, please have a look at my
> results here if you have the time:
> 
> https://launchpad.net/people/phanatic/+branch/olive/bzr-gtk
> 
> The gdiff and viz commands will need a bit more tweaking, but I hope
> I'll be able to finish them today.
> 
> Some of the source files from bzr-gtk don't have any copyright
> information. Is that intentional? (e.g. __init__.py)
> 
> If you don't like what I'm doing or how I'm doing, please tell me :)
Let's try to discuss first what kind of integration between olive and
bzr-gtk we are aiming for. I see the following possibilities:

 (1) Integrate the two into one package. 
 (2) Keep two separate packages but move some of Olive's classes to
bzr-gtk and then "import gtk.*" from Olive
 (3) Keep two separate packages but "import olive.*" from bzr-gtk

Personally, I would like to avoid (3) as it would make people using
bzr-gtk use extra dependencies. I would prefer (1), but if we decide to
go that direction, that leaves us with a couple of other issues.

In the case of (1), what name to use? I would prefer bzr-gtk as name for
the plugin and olive as name for the standalone utility. 

There are a couple of things in Olive at the moment that I would like to
avoid in an integrated plugin. For example, I think a low-level
changelog isn't very useful and I'd rather avoid the backend/ directory
especially as all this stuff will be gtk-specific.

What do you think?

Cheers,

Jelmer

-- 
Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060903/1e797215/attachment.pgp