Re: Features vs. Time-based [Was: Gnome 2 infinity and beyond]

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Alan Horkan">

> > [1] Holy shit, just stop talking about version numbers at all. It
> > totally doesn't mean anything useful.
> 
> I understand you and most developers do not think it is important but
> would it kill you to recognise that some people do* and it wouldn't hurt
> to try and pin down when it might happen to something less vague than
> "maybe later"?

I've been pretty specific about it, and haven't said it's "unimportant".

> > Chris got it right. To fix the lack of agenda, we need to set an agenda
> > that is independent of the release cycle - particularly for bigger goals
> > that we think about for Topaz. That doesn't mean dumping the time-based
> > releases.
> 
> Agreed.  How can I help make there be an agenda?

Write code. Make things happen. That's ultimately what matters.

> > There is *NO PRESSURE* to call something 'GNOME 3.0'. We can do it when
> > we're ready.
> 
> No one is saying when if ever we might be ready.  You are not even saying
> we wont be ready for at least another 2 or 3 releases and to stop asking
> until then.  No one here seems to think it is strange to have the 2.x
> branch continue for updwards of 8 years but I cannot be the only one
> looking in thinking it is a bit weird**.

We're not going to bless something '3.0' because some people think '2.x' is
weird.

- Jeff

-- 
GUADEC 2006: Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain            http://2006.guadec.org/
 
                      Hunch, n.: U.S. Foreign Policy.