Re: Reworking the GTK+ cdebconf frontend
Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:35:09PM +0200, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
I must evantually say i'm disappointed of the way the gtk frontend code
was nonchalantly modified, without any patch being posted and discussed
on d-boot previously, moreover proving to ignore many design decisions
behind the whole g-i.
Because of all the above reasons, i'd like to revert the gtk frontend to
My initial plan was to work on the code alone until I would be satisfied
with it and then only to submit it for inclusion.
Colin told me that it would be better if I would rather do more
incremental changes that could be more easily reviewed. I then followed
his advice and started to commit incremental changes in the repository.
What I have done yet is only a first step in a process. I basically
wanted to have a better view on the code to be able to refactor it.
It's currently underdocumented, so I wanted to get things clearer in the
first place. This meant expanding variable definitions and adding a lot
of comments all over the code. And yes, this made the code longer, but
that's only a first step to be sure that I would not loose any
subtitlities during the refactoring step.
I felt a general consensus here, in Edinburgh, from most people involved
in the debian-installer, that such improvement of the code base would be
more than welcome. I also felt that they were trusting my intents and
my abilities to improve the code.
I know how much time you have actually spent on that code, and I fully
appreciate it. If you don't trust me, well... I might just go on with
my initial idea and submit a huge diff at the end.
In any case, please give me more time before rejecting my contributions
Apropos of the changes you brought to the sourcecode (the one where you
added "comments" all over the code specifically), i already expressed my
opinion: i believe they don't bring any substantial benefit,
overcomplicate it and don't take into account existing issues.
I understand GTK+'s API may look complex to newbies, so adding comments
aboout GTK's API may seem a good idea initially, but in the long term
perspective all those obvious commentings will turn into a burden for
IMHO, what *really* needs to be documented are cdebconf's internals
(data structures, frontend/db implementation..): i still remember my
initial difficulties in working on the GTK frontend were not related to
the GTK API, which is well documented, but rather to the understanding
of how cdebconf is structured and works internally, which i had to
understand by myself.
Apropos of the way of performing commits, after the g-i became part of
official builds i became very prudent about committing huge changes to
If you look into last months d-boot archives, you'll see that i usually
discuss patches on list before committing, and you'll also see the same
do all other people working on the g-i: because the d-i is a community
project, i think posting-before-commiting is the correct way of proceeding.
You did warn the ml about your intentions about refactoring the GTK
frontend in the next 2-3 days, but your mail dates 20/06/2007 18:55 and
your first commit 2007-06-20 21:31:37 (just a few hours later),
practically leaving no time for replies: using an euphemism, i consider
this behaviour unfair.
I'd like you to respect the simple "post-before-committing" and discuss
with the d-boot team further changes before they take place.
As anyone can see, i didn't rejected (reverted) anything, but rather
expressed my doubts about your commits; still, my opinion is that
commits 47577, 47580, 47591 have to be reverted, while 47587 and 47611