Re: Moduleset Reorganization -- Take two

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Le jeudi 07 octobre 2010, à 16:50 +0200, Murray Cumming a écrit :
> On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 13:38 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> >   + feedback will not be centered around the goal of the application,
> >     but about its technical merits:
> >     - use of GNOME technologies
> >     - integration with the Core Desktop
> >     - usability and respect of the HIG
> >     - existence of localization issues or not
> >     - status of documentation
> >     - accessibility support 
> 
> But you will still require these modules to actually follow the release
> schedule, right, such as feature freezes, string freezes, UI freezes,
> hard-code freeze, etc?

This was mentioned later in the proposal: we encourage app developers to
follow the GNOME schedule. But if they don't, they need to publish their
schedule.

We think most people will adopt the GNOME schedule, but some app
developers might have different needs. For example, I talked to the
Shotwell developers at GUADEC, and they currently use cycles that are
much shorter than six months.

What matters is that there is a documented schedule, and that there are
proper freezes. It doesn't have to be the GNOME schedule, although it's
nicer for us.

> The point of the release sets (and the release team) is still to release
> software, I hope.

Sure. And the way it works wouldn't change for the platform and the core
desktop. But for applications, the way we work would need to be
adjusted a bit.

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.