Re: GNOME 3 [was Re: GNOME following a non-free standard]

[Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>]

On 5/23/05, Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 12:17 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > Most non-free standards would specifically exclude implementation in
> > licenses we would consider acceptable, no?
> >
> > Luis (who thinks writing more proposals about gnome3, as opposed to
> > going and coding examples of the damn thing, is likely to be a waste
> > of time, sorry)
> 
> Let me just put this point of view out in advance of GUADEC:
> 
>  The only form of "gnome3" that makes sense is to take a gnome-2.1x
>  and call it 3.x.
> 
> We know from experience that long, incoherent release cycles are
> a mistake. We know from experience that reimplementing code to
> new technology just because that new technology is cool is a mistake.
> 
> We have no reason at all to break ABI/API in any fundamental way.
> ABI/API breakage has by itself *no* end user benefits so should
> have nothing to do with the major version of GNOME.

I don't think anyone except some loons on the wiki is suggesting this
route (though admittedly cleaning out the API to make ourselves more
ISV-friendly doesn't seem too insane.) The serious suggestions, at
least the ones I've seen, are all about radically reworking the user
model.

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