Re: Features vs. Time-based [Was: Gnome 2 infinity and beyond]
- From: Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>
- To: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Features vs. Time-based [Was: Gnome 2 infinity and beyond]
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:41:35 +1000
<quote who="Alan Horkan">
> > [1] Holy shit, just stop talking about version numbers at all. It
> > totally doesn't mean anything useful.
>
> I understand you and most developers do not think it is important but
> would it kill you to recognise that some people do* and it wouldn't hurt
> to try and pin down when it might happen to something less vague than
> "maybe later"?
I've been pretty specific about it, and haven't said it's "unimportant".
> > Chris got it right. To fix the lack of agenda, we need to set an agenda
> > that is independent of the release cycle - particularly for bigger goals
> > that we think about for Topaz. That doesn't mean dumping the time-based
> > releases.
>
> Agreed. How can I help make there be an agenda?
Write code. Make things happen. That's ultimately what matters.
> > There is *NO PRESSURE* to call something 'GNOME 3.0'. We can do it when
> > we're ready.
>
> No one is saying when if ever we might be ready. You are not even saying
> we wont be ready for at least another 2 or 3 releases and to stop asking
> until then. No one here seems to think it is strange to have the 2.x
> branch continue for updwards of 8 years but I cannot be the only one
> looking in thinking it is a bit weird**.
We're not going to bless something '3.0' because some people think '2.x' is
weird.
- Jeff
--
GUADEC 2006: Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain http://2006.guadec.org/
Hunch, n.: U.S. Foreign Policy.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]