Re: State of gvfs in Gnome 2.21

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 11:20 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2008 11:15 AM, Matthias Clasen <matthias clasen gmail com> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 2008 10:01 AM, Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-02-12 at 16:13 +0200, Lucas Rocha wrote:
> >
> > > I can't say I'm happy about something like that though, since I spent
> > > the last 1.5 years or so trying to make this happen for 2.22. And if it
> > > gets postponed the code will get little or no testing and little use by
> > > apps, so I'm not sure it will be in a much better shape once 2.24 comes
> > > around.
> >
> > Yeah, I fully agree here. One thing we have seen with gio is that it
> > is fine to work on something in your own little branch, and give talks
> > about it, etc, etc, but real review and feedback only happens when the
> > new stuff actually appears on the trunk, and people are forced to deal
> > with it.
> >
> > The consequence of this is that the 6 month release cycle is a bit
> > tight to go all the way from "getting api feedback" to "stable without
> > any end-user visible regressions"...
> 
> <cranky old guy>
> In the past, we from time to time discussed doing occassional
> nine-month cycles for major API changes like this one. Maybe it is
> time to have that discussion again, esp. if we intend to do any
> significant changes (online desktop integration? clutter/3D stuff?) in
> the near future.
> </cranky old guy>

I made a proposal a while back for doing continuous nine
month cycles while still making a release every six months.
The purpose of this was to give a very large window for
writers, translators, and testers.

In cases like this, where we have massive new API that
needs more hammering, the extra window could be used for
that purpose.

Reactions to this proposal were mixed.  But in the interest
of keeping my broken-record image, I'll post it again:

http://www.gnome.org/~shaunm/ninebysix.html

--
Shaun