Re: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)

[Malcolm Tredinnick <malcolm commsecure com au>]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 03:17:59PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Malcolm Tredinnick">
> 
> > Unless you are going to irrevocably tie the items in the "developer"
> > release to the "platform" release (which is silly, since the developer
> > release provides the means to make software that is both in the platform
> > release and other software that goes above and beyond), this is just a
> > marketing slogan. I cannot really go much further here if you are going to
> > keep libraries and applications together as a single unit, since that's
> > not the way a number of people are working.
> > 
> > I realise we (well, you (plural) -- stupid limited English pronouns) do
> > not have plans to make "developer" releases in the currently planned
> > future, but in essence they still exist: we have a bunch of libraries that
> > can be put togather to build applications. From thesei pieces and others,
> > various applications are put together of which some are selected to go
> > into the so-called "platform" release.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're saying here. We currently have two major release
> sets:
> 
>   Developer Platform - GNOME libraries with API/ABI guarantees to provide
>   developers with a consistent platform to develop on. Should provide all of
>   the features required to write "GNOME software" (which means shifting
>   stuff down to this layer as we do new things), etc.
>   
>   Desktop - comparable to default stuff shipped in Windows or Mac OS X,
>   aimed to be useful for everyone using GNOME. It should include the basic
>   set of features in a modern desktop environment + things that we push
>   forward if they're found to be important (basically not limiting ourselves
>   to mere equality).
> 
> We have made 'requirements' and commitments for both of these sets that are
> important to GNOME users and vendors. I'm really not sure what your previous
> paragraphs were about.

Although the above definitions exist intellectually, still, they are
released as one big group. Initially, GNOME 2 had a developer release
(or developer platform or whatever) and later there was a desktop
release. Now, there is no real distinction, we just have simultaneous
releases and people tend to talk about them as one group. I contend that
is an inappropraite grouping.

> > That is the thing that yesterday you were saying you wanted to be
> > comparable with Winblows and OS X. I am arguing that a lot of the
> > complaints people make about the direction of GNOME are ultimately
> > targeted at the applications, not the libraries.
> 
> These days, it's generally the desktop release that garners more attention
> and/or criticism. I think we're getting towards a point at which the desktop
> release is less important in terms of active development and features, and
> we'll need to start focusing on applications.
> 
> > > If either release (or module within) is inappropriate for a sizable
> > > chunk of our audience, then we're doing something wrong, and it ought to
> > > be fixed. If there are holes or problems, please let everyone know!
> > 
> > Given that it is impossible to judge the quantity or variation of the
> > various GNOME users, this can never be answered definitively. We witness
> > wild guesses about user bases and peoples' wishes on this list all the
> > time, but they are just that. In the end, people have settled for saying
> > that the audience the desktop release is targeted for are some kind of
> > hybrid Windows user moving across to GNOME and not wishing to relearn
> > much.
> 
> I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate picture of our target audience, but
> those points are important considerations regardless.

There aboslutely must be an accurate picture of your target audience
somewhere. Written down and available. Otherwise measuring applicability
or any other progress goal is impossible.

> > Defining the audience like that is fine (it's one of the contentions of
> > the "Inmates..." book, after all), but it does not mean the other groups
> > do not exist. Only that we cannot measure them.
> 
> At the end of the day (and at the end of your mostly contentless email,
> sorry but I really didn't understand what your point was), the desktop

Please, put your back into it and try to be more insulting; that effort
is hardly worth responding to.

You can either read my original mail (and not what you thought I said;
read what I wrote) and read it in the context of the mail I was
responding to, or not bother; I don't care. I was responding to somebody
who was critiquing the current process. At the same time, I presented a
viewpoint about why his differences with that process may not matter.
The mail was not directed at you and is probably not applicable to you
(either with or without your release team hat on).

The only reason I keep posting in this thread is so that somebody does
not stumble across the original response in the archives and feel that
it was closed off to my satisfaction with the "corrections" that were
posted. That has now been accomplished.

> release is designed to provide the greatest common factor of features and
> software for a modern desktop environment. If we're not doing that
> correctly, someone needs to get up and say so and/or do something about it.

I might respond if I could parse the penultimate sentence there.

Now, back to sticking pencils through my hand. It's a better use of my
time.

Malcolm

-- 
"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."