Re: Gnome 2 infinity and beyond [was Re: Tango and 2.16]
- From: "Kalle Vahlman" <kalle vahlman gmail com>
- To: "Olav Vitters" <ovitters gmail com>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Gnome 2 infinity and beyond [was Re: Tango and 2.16]
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 20:27:26 +0300
On 4/19/06, Olav Vitters <ovitters gmail com> 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 and at some time perhaps call a 2.x version 3.0.
I never meant anything to be held back (although some things will be /
has been due to the backwards compatibility, right?).
> > 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.
I did not say they should not be added in the 2.x series. In fact,
there really *should* be a viable option available _right now_ please
What I meant was that there should be a goal that when 3.0 is hit,
stuff under the GNOME desktop should fullfill most if not all "basic"
needs for a desktop. Currently it lacks some things, IM being one of
What the basic needs are is of course debatable, but I'd say at least
IM is one of them (just look how much Messenger is used today).
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi
Powered by http://movial.fi
Interesting stuff at http://syslog.movial.fi
] [Thread Prev