olive vs bzr-gtk

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 11:02 +0200, Szilveszter Farkas wrote:
> > At a technical level I would recommend against having a package called
> > 'gtk.*', as it seems like it would clash with Python's standard gtk
> > library.  Could it be bzrgtk instead?
> Currently the bzr-gtk code is under bzrlib.plugins.gtk.*, and Olive is
> under olive.* (e.g. olive.frontend.gtk.*). So what you suggest is to
> merge bzr-gtk's and Olive'd GTK code into bzrgtk.*?
I think we should keep the two separate, but move shared code to
bzrlib.plugins.gtk as that can be usable from other plugins/frontends
(such as nautilus-bzr) as well.

> > On my quick look through there does seem to be a lot of duplication of
> > functions that are already provided inside bzrlib.  I'm sure Szilveszter
> > added these for a reason, but I'd like very much if we could avoid
> > having two implementations of operations like 'pull', etc.
> This was already discussed both on the mailing list and on IRC. The
> reason for having this wrapper was the lack of documented APIs (that
> was 3 months ago, now I'm happy to see that the situation has
> changed). Another reason was the thing you mentioned just below.
I would like to get rid of backend/ now rather than doing so after the
merge (it'd also make the merge more complicated).

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/20060904/a87d74cf/attachment.pgp