Jamie Bennett [2010-01-05 12:44 -0000]: > I've discuss with quite a few of upstream now and it seems if we want > edje (and its required for this cycle) then we need embryo. What can we > do to push this one through?
Well, if we need it for an important blueprint, or have a business commitment to it, then it's not so much a question of "if" in the first place. As I already said, this looks like a rather obscure and hard to maintain piece of code -- a VM without formal tests is a disaster waiting to happen if you ever need to fix anything in it. If it's only used in the cotext of edje, then it might be much better to just integrate embryo into edje instead of offering it as a separate public API. Does edje, and the applications above that have any test suite or test plan which would allow at least a shallow testing of embryo? If the mobile team wants to commit to maintaining this, it's fine, but I would like to see a firm and explicit statement about that. If you rely on something like this, then you might not get away with "Minimal maintenance needed" and "Debian responsible for bugs", but we should have someone who has at least a basic understanding of how this works, and check whether these pieces are at least documented somewhere. Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- [MIR] Main inclusion request for embryo https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/490304 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
