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

<quote who="Malcolm Tredinnick">

> > 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.

Why so?

Practically, it has made sense to release the developer platform and desktop
releases at the same time. Since the 2.0 release, they have been fairly lock
step in their development - that's purely a result of pulling together an
immense amount of code for 2.0 and continuing the scheme for 2.2. We're just
working on incremental updates to both sets thus far.

I think that will change when we start focusing on platform updates for
application developers. It makes an awful lot of sense to move GNOME Office
required library features into our developer platform at some stage, which
may be completely unrelated to further desktop work.

It's just a matter of practice and the amount of people who are able work on
each area. The requirements and commitments of each set of modules are very
different - and that, to me, is the important distinction. When they're
released is not wildly relevant (yet).

> > 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.

Yes, you are absolutely right. But I don't think you gave a good analysis of
what that audience is. It's still fluid, though leans towards "corporate
desktop users", and I hope that we can build some consensus about this at

> > > 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.

I'm not trying to be insulting, I just don't really get your point in the
previous emails. You've raised concerns about a bunch of things, in amongst
your support of the process, but... Well, specifics would be so much easier
to deal with via email. If you see something that doesn't fit into the
'greatest common factor' goal, let us know so it can be addressed.

> > 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.

"If we're not doing something right, let us know, give us specifics."

- Jeff

       "I think of the last year or two as being the biggest private        
         investment in public works in decades." - Andrew Tridgell          

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]