Re: API freeze for GNOME 2

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

On 14Nov2001 03:26PM (+0000), Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi Owen,
> 
> On 14 Nov 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:
> 
> > By 2.2,  I meant "post-2.0 release with API additions and binary
> > compatibility".
> >
> > I don't know of any post-2.0 version number plans in for GNOME
> > at this point. For GTK+, what I want to do is:
> >
> >  2.0
> >  2.0.x  Bug fixes
> >  2.2    Source/binary compatible release with multihead support, other
> >         API additions
> >  2.4?   Another source/binary compatible release
> >  2.6?
> >  3.0:   Source/binary incompatible release in the hazy future
> >
> > Haven't completely gotten Tim to agree with me yet on this versioning
> > scheme, but we are going to be restricting ourselves to source/binary
> > compatible additions for the mid-term future in any case.
> 
> 	That's great - really :-) At least this has been thought out
> for gtk+.
> 
> 	No, how about the rest of gnome? Is there a possibility that
> this could be agreed on as a general, hazy plan for the gnome desktop
> as a whole?

Mark,

Our previous long-term roadmap for GNOME was:

1.4.1 - Bug fix and UI polish follow-on to 1.4 (still not out,
        whatever happened to it?)

2.0   - New major release, breaks source and binary compatibility with
        1.x

2.0.1 - Bug fix follow-on to 2.0 (hopefully a quick-turn, 3-4 months or so)

2.2   - Source and binary compatible with 2.0, will include compatible API
        changes, new feautures & usability improvements. 

2.2.1 - Bug fix follow-on to 2.2 (hopefully even more of a quick-turn
        than 2.0.1)

3.0   - New major release, breaks source and binary compatibility with 2.x


But I don't think this is posted anywhere. I hope jdub can put it up
on dotPlan.

Of course, this roadmap is very forward-looking and subject to change
(we haven't made any effor to line it up with the Gtk+ roadmap for
instance). But rather than discussing it now, I hope we can focus on
the 2.0 part of it (while keeping in mind that 2.0.1 and 2.2 are not
that far after 2.0).

I'd also like to add that I hope/expect that 2.2 and 2.0.1 development
will be done in parallel to some extent. New feature work and new APIs
will go towards 2.2 while only important fixes land on the 2.0.1
branch, so 2.0.1 can be really solid and go out fast.

 - Maciej