(In reply to comment #39)
> This would be a lot easier to take if we could at least support both GVFS and
> GIO in our source tree for an interim period.
Oh dear, that's in direct contradiction to my review comment which said to completely strip gnome-vfs from the tree...
I still think having both in the tree is nonsensical, and if it has to miss 3.6 then as long as 3.6 really is a fast release I suppose everyone can wait just a little longer. I can :-)
(In reply to comment #39)
> This would be a lot easier to take if we could at least support both GVFS and
> GIO in our source tree for an interim period.
Oh dear, that's in direct contradiction to my review comment which said to completely strip gnome-vfs from the tree...
I still think having both in the tree is nonsensical, and if it has to miss 3.6 then as long as 3.6 really is a fast release I suppose everyone can wait just a little longer. I can :-)