On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 21:58 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, at 02:06 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 09:06 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: > > > So unless MATE and co. are actually using it, I don't think it's a bad > > > idea to drop it (the paprefs dep can be upgraded to latest PA with > > > gsettings-only support). > > > > If the data migration is not entirely smooth for users, I want to let > > distributions choose when to drop gconf support. > > Sure, making sure there's a smooth transition is important, but IMO it's > orthogonal to supporting GConf. It's not great to have GSettings as an > option and then push the decision of whether config should break or not > out to distribution. Do you mean that it's worse to provide a gsettings option that has glitchy data migration than to provide no gsettings option at all? I think that depends on how high distributions set their bar. If I was a distribution maintainer, I would stay with gconf until a smooth migration is available. If all distribution maintainers are like me, then I agree, we should block gsettings support until this is fully sorted out, but if I've understood correctly, Sylvain is working on Fedora, and his patches are less-than-perfect in this regard, which suggests to me that Fedora perhaps doesn't care that much about the migration problems. --Â Tanu
