Hey John and Ross, now you guys forced me to blog about “dconf” :p. And trust me: I don’t (yet) like doing that. Simply because “dconf” is at this moment “only an idea”. It’s a “concept”. It’s not yet code. You can’t yet touch it. Please understand this!
And please understand that we are not about flamewars on xdg-list. We are actually thinking about and investigating the concept. We are doing meetings. Etcetera. But we aren’t promising anything! It’s unfair of you to start saying “dconf is crack” when we haven’t even started it. Sure you meant “that E-Mail is crack”, but a lot people might interprete your blog as: “dconf is crack”. That’s unfair and will kill the project. In my humble opinion shouldn’t the free software community behave like that.
I’d like to make sure people understand that the proposal of Jamie isn’t really about DConf. It’s about a project that he’ll be doing himself
So far the only (more or less official) conceptual proposal, coming from me, about DConf, is this one. And this drawing will give you a visual overview of the different (proposed) components and their responsibilities.
I’m glad you guys read the mailing list. But please don’t take things out of the context. Please make sure people will read the conversations, not just one E-mail of anybody who’s subscribed to the mailing list.
Also note that storing the configuration data in a CVS server isn’t addressed in any of the current proposals. So DConf, it’s current proposal, isn’t about that at all. Again, please keep things in context. Only one person requested this on xdg-list a very long time ago. None of the people who are interested in dconf have ever acknowledged that this is an important feature request.
I also like to repeat that DConf is (in my humble opinion) a research project. It’s not something that will be usable soon. Please do not start thinking that we’ll have a solution for the next major GNOME or KDE release. It’s not that simple!
Oh and by the way: Yes, you’re right, we do need a realistic-minded project leader.