Re: gnome2 and gnome3: strategy of coexisting

[Sergey Udaltsov <sergey udaltsov gmail com>]

Personally, I feel that is wrong - that kind of attitude to 2.x. It is
(not "was"!) a stable and solid foundation. While we are floating into
new and dangerous waters of 3.x (still risking getting into the
situation KDE folks had: "KDE 4.0 != KDE4"), at least we could make a
couple of small things here and there - allowing them to coexist, for
smoother transition. I know that is always a question of resources, as
usual - but if some things cost nothing, why not buy them?

Sergey

PS I am already missing 2.x. That's just my conservatism - but I know
a lot of users are like me. People like me would not mind seeing 2.34,
2.36, ...2.98, 2.100, 2.102, ... - just less bugs and a wee bit of
more features, here and there;)

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:37:36PM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
>> Thanks for the answer. So, does that mean we directly or indirectly
>> recommend to distromakers NOT to allow users to choose between gnome2
>> ("real", not "(panel + nautilus)/gnome3") and gnome3 sessions? Does
>> that mean we recommend not to bother creating two sets of packages? Or
>> we are just neutral and do not care (and we do not help)?
>
> I don't expect anyone @ GNOME to care about 2.x. Distributions can do
> what they want, but need to take that into account.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Olav
>