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

[Brian Cameron <Brian Cameron Sun COM>]

Dave:

> Brian Cameron wrote:
> > > Quoting myself:
> > 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 do agree, and I also agree that the time to bump to 3.0 is probably
approaching.  I just think that the GNOME community should invest a
bit of effort wrapping up loose ends before doing a 3.0 release.

> > 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.

Perhaps we can find some middle ground.  I do not personally think it
is necessary for GNOME 3.0 to be an overhaul of GNOME, nor is it
necessary to break any backwards compatibility.

However, it does seem sensible for GNOME 3.0 to be timed with when
Project Ridley reaches a sane point.  It would be ideal if the GNOME
3.0 API could comfortably deprecate the interfaces that we have been
working hard to achieve.  Most of this work has already been done.
With gio/gvfs now integrating into GNOME, another major hurdle is
being crossed.

It might also make sense to make a bit more headway on possibly
replacing gconf with dconf, and also to make more progress on replacing
the a11y infrastructure with D-Bus before a 3.0 release.  This way
we could also deprecate bonobo and ORBit2, which has been a longstanding
desire.  I think if we were able to wait until this is done, that we
would really have a new developer platform that would shine enough to
make a 3.0 release especially noteworthy.

At the very least, we need to discuss such things, I think.  I do not
think the GNOME community has yet defined what the bar is, let alone
whether it is set too high.  :)

> > 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? ;-)

As you suggest, we might be there already.  My personal opinion is that
it might be good to wait another release cycle or two.  But I think it
is mostly up to the community to decide.

Brian