Re: Thoughts on GNOME 2.0

[Ali Abdin <aliabdin aucegypt edu>]

On 17 Feb 2001 11:02:43 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 
> Ali Abdin <aliabdin aucegypt edu> writes:  
> > - Usage of libxml2 and eradication of libxml1 usage
> > - Usage of gdk-pixbuf and eradication of imlib
> > - Migrate the panel to oaf and eradication of gnorba
> 
> I think libxml1->libxm2 is mostly a painless transition, and Imlib and
> gnorba are already nearly gone, when it was possible without breaking
> API.


I realize this is relatively painless, but:
A) They will not be gone in GNOME 1.4
B) We still need to migrate everything that has not migrated (i.e. we
can now break bin
compatibility for this)
C) They are still important changes to make regardless of how easy/fast
it will be.
D) It'll obsolete several libraries

> > - General polish and feature addition to various libraries (gnome-vfs,
> >    gtkhtml, gal, etc.)
> 
> That's far too vague for me. ;-) We do need some sort of cap on this
> stuff, if only a date. "polish until September" ;-)


I was intentionally vague actually. Each library has its own "agenda"
set by the maintainer.
For example, gnome-vfs has several features that have been postponed to
post
gnome-vfs 1.0 (because there is no time to do it for the GNOME 1.4). You
can check them
out at Eazel's bugzilla server. 

It should be relatively easy for each library maintainer(s) to set a set
of feature goals for
the GNOME 2.0 platform.

> (Though as I've said several times, polishing libs until September
> MUST throw out either the user environment changes or the release
> date; I'm not clear from your mail which you would advocate throwing
> out?)


I think I am throwing out the user environment changes. Note: you can
drastically modify
the user environment with the current library improvements:
1) We can have a FAST pixbuf engine for a change (using gdk-pixbuf)
2) Change the default look/theme of gtk+
3) Change the "default" icons for GNOME (and possible sounds)
4) The addition of bi-di support, antialiased fonts, UTF-8 support.

While this may not be an entire re-architecture of the GNOME user
environment, I think
it will suffice as a change for the GNOME users.

> > - Sorting out of where the X bonobo stuff will go (i.e. move to
> > gnome-libs)
> 
> IMHO libbonoboui, a separate tarball.


Small technicality :)

> > - Get gnome-libs in shape
> 
> Again, I think first we need a clear functional definition for
> gnome-libs as distinct from other modules such as bonoboui, gtk,
> etc. so that we have agreement on what constitutes "in shape."


I agree. I was just trying to emphasize that this is the number 1
priority for GNOME 2.0
and the one that has been least discussed, but NEEDS to be most
discussed.

I think for starters we should define a clear group of maintainers for
gnome-libs and 
have them state their "goals' for gnome-libs 2.0 (and then we can
discuss, comment, 
make suggestions, etc.)

Regards,
Ali

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers