> The good news is that there is no > reason in the world we can't release a new version of GNOME (2.0.1 or even > 2.2) relatively soon after 2.0. Shorter release cycles would be good, I > think. > Because we'll get users/journos who judge Gnome 2 by the state of the Gnome2.0 release. Remember "GNOME is buggy" because of the state of gnome 1.0 even though Gnome 1.0.1 was better? We will be judged on the state of the gnome 2.0 release, and if Gnome 2.0 doesn't have any reason to upgrade or any user visible changes then people will think that gnome 2.0.1 will have no user visible changes. And if we're releasing gnome 2.0, but it's not going to be any better (user wise) than gnome 1.4 (and lets be honest, it's not), and then releasing gnome 2.0.1 (or even 2.2) a few months later, then why not delay the gnome 2.0 release by a month? Or another option is: We release the gnome 2.0 platform when we are happy with it and then when we've got what would be this mystical wonder release you suggest for 2.0.1 (or 2.2 (heck, talk about version inflation)) release it as the gnome 2.0 desktop. > Absolutely. It's often very small things, such as the default look and feel > that add so much polish to a release. Polish is useless if no-one is using it. iain -- "It isn't rebels who cause the troubles of the world, it's the troubles that cause the rebels." - Carl Oglesby
Attachment:
pgp88gvi9Y4IJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature