Re: gnome2 and gnome3: strategy of coexisting

[Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl>]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:20:04PM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
> 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?

You will still have GNOME panel available. Other than that, loads of
things will use gsettings instead of gconf. I don't see why'd you want
GNOME 2.x? What is the point? Ensuring that distributions will at least
show a few GNOME changes in April even if they don't want 3.0?

We've already released 2.32 as an extra release just because GNOME 3.0
wasn't ready. Now everything is focussing finally more on really
releasing 3.0.

For 2.x we still have the 2.32.x releases. But backporting is to me not
what focus should be upon.

The 3.1/3.2 cycle will be shorter so distributions will more quickly get
the feedback we will surely get from 3.0. If some distribution wants to
handle this differently, they're free to 'git clone' and submit patches.

-- 
Regards,
Olav