Re: Gnome 2 infinity and beyond [was Re: Tango and 2.16]

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

Post
Top
Don't
Please

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:

> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:04:39 +0100
> From: Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <gjc inescporto pt>
> To: Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>
> Cc: desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
> Subject: Re: Gnome 2 infinity and beyond [was Re: Tango and 2.16]
>
>   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

Who says anything needs to be broken?

> 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.

Thinking about it some more I believe it most likely to be the release
team who will make the decision on the release naming and numbering but I
am trying to make it clearer when in the near future it might be
appropriate and help give them a good justification and some kind of
mandate to make the change.

>   Developers are the only ones that should be seeing the GNOME version,
> anyway.  End users only see the distribution version,

There is some truth to that but it is not absolute.  There is an awareness
of the Gnome version number too, perhaps less important but still noticed
by enough people that it matters.  Why shouldn't the version number be
increased to reflect the great amount of work and significant improvements
which have happened since Gnome 2.0?  Wouldn't it be a great opportunity
to highlight all the new technologies, and try and incorporate that into
the goals for  2.18 or 2.20 and have one of those become Gnome 3.0?

> But also note that we also shouldn't make 3.0 as an excuse for breaking
> the API sooner than necessary.

It is a shame the idea of Gnome 3.0 has been trapped together with this
idea of breakage. I'm not advocating breakage, hopefully compatibility can
be maintained for a very long time.  Don't take my word for it read what
Owen and Havoc wrote over a year ago [1].

A roadmap saying the next planned releases would be Gnome 2.16, 2.18, 2.20
would at least allow one to say with some conviction that Gnome 3.0 is not
planned for at least another year and a half.

> > At the moment the best answer to the question of Gnome 3.0 seems to be
> > "maybe later".  Gnome 3.0 (Topaz) not happen if there is no plan*.  The

> > to the next major version number.  It is mostly marketing, but given a
> > little thought it could be made meaningful and need not be just a
> > superficial gesture to those who care too much about labelling, it could
> > be significant and techincally justifiable.

> > mentioned as something people were interested in.  Gnome 3.0 could be
> > taken as a way to celebrate all the progress and encourage people to take
> > another look.

Maybe next year what is scheduled to be 2.20 could become Gnome 3.0 to
celebrate the milestone of 10 Years of Gnome?

> > Maybe it will be a year or two before Gnome 3.0 happens but I hope
> > developers will reconsider Gnome 3.0 and see it as an opportunity and
> > begin to make plans or clarify when it might be appropriate to bump the
> > major version number in recognition of how far Gnome has come and how much
> > as been achieved.

> > [1] Havoc Pennington said it better already
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2005-May/msg00142.html

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

Inkscape http://inkscape.org
Abiword http://www.abisource.com
Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org

Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/