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

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

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

> > 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.

I am not proposing the change "just because we feel like it".

I put serious thought into the fact that Gnome 3.0 would be useful way to
highlight all the progress that has been made.  A major version number
change is also of some marketing value.

> 3.0 should mean API breakage point.

Should it?  Please explain.

>   People seem to think that 3.0 should be some sort of ideal desktop
> where everything is nice perfectly integrated.

It would be good to do something to dispell and manage those
expectations because whenever 3.0 does come it will be hard to meet the
utopian vision some people have for it.   Having 3.0 sooner rather than
later could help puncture that bubble.

> will probably never happen.  But it's cool to have a Ridley "vision", so
> that we can gradually work towards it.

Perhaps the Project Ridley developers have clearer intentions of when they
might want to declare GTK 3.0 and it would provide a clearer break off
point for Gnome 3.0 but again I would really like to know what the plan
is if there actually is one.

-- 
Alan H.