GTG

Make GTG into a Quickly project

Bug #496445 reported by Jono Bacon
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
GTG
Won't Fix
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

Hi Folks!

This is certainly a wishlist item, but I would like to recommend you make GTG into a Quickly project. For more information on Quickly see http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Quickly, but I think using it could help make development easier. Quickly also makes generated local packages easier, and also pushing to a PPA.

Thanks for your hard work on GTG, it looks awesome! :-)

Changed in gtg:
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
milestone: none → 0.3
Revision history for this message
Lionel Dricot (ploum-deactivatedaccount) wrote :

I agree that quickly seems really nice but, unfortunatly, it was launched after we had a lot of work already done on GTG. I thought that quickly was mostly intended to help developer to start a new project.

As GTG is already existing with his history, I don't see the point to make it a quickly project (nor do I understand what would be needed on our side).

Could anybody explain me the benefits of making GTG a quickly project? (and also, the drawbacks, of course)

Changed in gtg:
milestone: 0.3 → none
Changed in gtg:
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Jono Bacon (jonobacon) wrote :

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Lionel.

Quickly offers a number of benefit, mainly lots of convenience features for loading source files, running code, editing Glade files, adding dialog boxes, dealing with licensing, generating packages, pushing to a PPA etc. Take a look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Quickly

Revision history for this message
Luca Invernizzi (invernizzi) wrote :

Hi Jono,
I played around with quickly a bit and it's indeed a nice way to develop software.
 Unfortunately, we did not start with that from the beginning, and now i'm afraid that moving to it would mean rewriting some of the code, moving files around and losing our bazaar log (which is essential to track regressions).
Therefore, I don't think that it will be in our plans, at least in the short term.
Thanks for the bug, though, you let me discover a nice piece of software

Revision history for this message
Lionel Dricot (ploum-deactivatedaccount) wrote :

Hello Jono, I've already read it and cannot find any advantage we would benefit from porting our code to quickly. More, it seems a lot of work. Lot of work for no benefits : mmm, I'm not convinced ;-)

It seems that Luca agrees with me so I'm closing this bug for now.

Changed in gtg:
status: Incomplete → Won't Fix
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.