Re: [draft] Planning for GNOME 3.0

[Matthias Clasen <matthias clasen gmail com>]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:


Some quick feedback (I only had time to read this through once, so
take it with a grain of salt):

> Some regressions were pointed out during the past few cycles: those should not be ignored and
> we believe part of the reasons why they happened is that only a subpart of our community was
> trying to move forward; having a community-wide focus should limit the number of regressions.

Fwiw, my expectation is not that the regression will be fewer, but I
really, really hope that we can reduce
the amount of controversy around the (unavoidable) regressions if
there is a more concrete, larger goal
that we are working towards.

> It is slightly disappointing to see no talk of 'bringing platform into
> 21st century'; i.e., easy web access by devs, deep IM/people
> integration, or jscript. (yay for jscript mostly killing the java/c#
> discussion! ;)

Yeah, I think in the 'development platform' section we want to mention
introspection, at least.

> Our six-month cycle works because we are making small, incremental
> changes; while I admire the boldness of thinking such massive changes
> are possible in a six month cycle, I also think you're crazy. Accept
> right now that (unless there is massive investment in testing, and
> probably even not then) this will absolutely not happen on calendar.

Probably worth pointing out in the document (with links, etc) that
both the gnome-shell and the zeitgeist effort are already underway for
~6 months and both have working code. So we are not talking about
developing these things from scatch in a single cycle, but rather at
getting them to a point where there are ready for consumption during
the 2.27 cycle, and working on their integration in the desktop and
apps in the 2.29  cycle.


Matthias
This shoul