Re: gnome2 and gnome3: strategy of coexisting

[Sergey Udaltsov <sergey udaltsov gmail com>]

I am not saying about backporting, of course! That would be a waste of
resources. I am saying that distros shipping gnome 3.0 will most
probably provide safe harbor with gnome 2.32 (+all possible fixes). It
could be a nice and friendly gesture - to help them a bit. But if
gnome does not care, that's just it.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl> wrote:
> 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
>