On 04/02/2013 07:45 AM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
I agree with most of the comment from Emmanuele, so I will not repeat
them, but I will add some comments.
I know that this question can sound harsh, it is not my intention: In
>
> We've been having some discussions in the marketing team regarding
> frequent (and valid) criticism regarding the availability of
> extensions after a release from the community at large.
which sense those criticism are valid?
AFAIK, there isn't any place on gnome-shell documentation (on
gnome-shell itself, live.gnome.org, etc) saying that gnome-shell would
provide a stable "API" to the extensions. So unless their criticism is
based on a lack for a explicit disclaimer saying that, I don't see how a
criticism related with a extension stopping to work after a release
could be valid.
>Who is 'we'? What do you mean for "image"? Do you mean adding a new
> We should prepare an image for porting extensions prior to code freeze
> so that we can give extension writers a chance to port their
> extensions over.
period on the GNOME schedule in order to port extensions?
> We should probably put a disclaimer that we reserve the right toAs others said, I really think that the best candidates to update a
> modify some extensions explicitly to make  it work with our release.
> Â Given that the license for most extensions is the GPL, this should
> not pose a problem?
extension due a gnome-shell release are the extensions writers, and not
'we'.
> Â Essentially, I want to bring extension writers in as part of theI agree that it would be good to make extension writers life easier. But
> GNOME release mechanism.
as I said, as part of bring them in, I really think that if they are
interested, they should be the ones porting the extension they wrote.
BR
--
Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list