Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap

On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 11:07 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 09:03 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:


> I think it is important to do releases when you have progress in the 
> project not just because you have some new shiny feature to give to 
> people.

I'm more in favor of releasing based on a set of features, to be honest.

Otherwise you inflate the value of a release for your audience.

> For 3.0 I can see why you want to have *something* more than a 
> cleaner code base of course but I quite like the idea of a GTK+ which 
> feels much more solid.

For 3.0, sure. But I think we shouldn't let 4.0's developments be
blocked by it. Innovating is too important for that, in my opinion.

Also, 4.0 should be a whole lot more exciting to join than 3.0 is in my

> I suppose this comes down to if you think 3.0 should have the sort of
> changes 1.x->2.x had or not?

I'm not sure about 3.0, but as mentioned earlier I do think GTK+ could
use another such transition period of innovation and experimenting, yes.

> > Now you've done the GSEAL() work then we could do bigger work in a
> > branch before releasing an ABI breaking release (as stable) that gives
> > people nothing but the expectation of another future ABI break, meaning
> > that it won't be used much anyway.
> Of course. But an ABI break is always better than an API break and if 
> recompiling is all that's really needed, the effort by the developer 
> linking with GTK+ is really quite minimal (compared to the 1.x->2.x work 
> that was required when I ported all my apps back then).

This sudden effort that application developers had to do didn't only
have downsides: It made many people improve their oold code, they
drastically improved their UIs. It made GNOME a much better desktop.

And it created new kinds of innovation in many areas.

The same thing happens with the decay of CORBA and the introduction of
D-Bus. The emerging D-Bus inspired for example Telepathy (and a nice
symbiosis came to be).

Sometimes destruction is a good thing. It makes it possible for new
weeds to grow, and it cleans up the mess.

That doesn't mean I always advocate starting over. But I think GNOME
needs a new perspective for next few years:

Technology is changing. Perspectives are changing. And we'd be missing
the train in a big way if we let mobile slip (as we are, atm).



Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]