On Qua, 2006-04-19 at 16:35 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote: > On 4/19/06, Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com> wrote: > > On 4/19/06, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <gjc inescporto pt> wrote: > > > Please, don't take the 3.0 version lightly, only as a way to improve > > > GNOME marketing. The jump to 3.x version is invaluable in helping > > > developers figure out which library versions break API and can be > > > parallel installed, and which versions are simple upgrades that retain > > > old API compatibility. If we change the GNOME version to 3.0 but don't > > > break the API it is going to be very confusing for developers. > > > > Hey, don't forget the applications. GNOME is more than just an API. > > You guys make it sound like three-point-oh would be all about the > > platform things. > > I do not care about 3.0. If there are great ideas, why not do them > during 2.x Agreed. > and at some time perhaps call a 2.x version 3.0. Disagreed. Let's not call it 3.0 just because we feel like it. 3.0 should mean API breakage point. I still think that 3.0 should be a number for developers to care about, and project Ridley is a different thing. > > > GNOME still lacks (good and tightly integrated the GNOME way) > > applications in various day-to-day things like IM. Getting a good set > > of applications should be a goal for 3.0 (in addition to things like > > making the platform legacy-free). > > Why is IM so special that we cannot add it during 2.x? There already > is a plan to add office/productivity apps. People seem to think that 3.0 should be some sort of ideal desktop where everything is nice perfectly integrated. That's an utopia, it will probably never happen. But it's cool to have a Ridley "vision", so that we can gradually work towards it. -- Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net> The universe is always one step beyond logic.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature