Re: communication/information between forward-looking projects [was Re: Some info (Ref: GSOC 2008 advice)]

[Dave Neary <bolsh gnome org>]

Hi,

Brian Cameron wrote:
>> Quoting myself:
>> "Many users think "major version bump" is synonymous with "significant
>> new features"."
> 
> "Many" is a fuzzy word.  How many is many?

Deliberately fuzzy... I avoided "most people" or "most people I know",
although I believe both would be true.

> Whether a user would find a GNOME 2.24 renamed to GNOME 3.0 release
> exciting would probably depends on what version the user was
> previously using.  If they were using 2.6 (or something similarly old),
> they might feel the wealth of new features warrants the major release
> bump.  Users coming from GNOME 2.22 might not feel the same.

Sure. I'm merely pointing out that the wealth of new functionality which
has come into GNOME since 2.0, 6 years ago, is worth a major version bump.

The 6 month release cycle means it's happened in small steps, and thus
we have never had the occasion to recognise the big leaps forward.


> I am not opposed to doing a 3.0 release, mind you.  I just think that
> a 3.0 release should involve more coordination than just deciding to
> rename GNOME 2.24 to "3.0".  In my opinion, a 3.0 release should make
> some effort to take GNOME to the next level.  It should not be done
> because a "major release hasn't happened in a long time, and the KDE
> team did one."

I mostly agree.

I just think that we set the bar too high for major version number bumps.

...

> We should coordinate our 3.0 efforts so that we have some substance to
> back it up.  There seem to be things in the pipeline that would warrant
> a 3.0 release in the non-too-distant future.  Why not just hold off
> until then?

Will you remind us when we get there? ;-)

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
bolsh gnome org