Re: more gnome 2 proposal

[Iain <tigermilk btinternet com>]

> Part of the problem right now is that people have the (correct)
> impression that we are constantly saying that about the next
> release. More regular releases are the best way to fix that. 
> 2.2 will be shortly after 2.0.
> 

I have no problem with quick releases, I just think that 2.0 is the
major change one and the .x releases are the getting some extra stuff
into it.
This way I think the Bonobo thing and maybe the gnome-vfs thing are
major changes...
I think we can have a slightly longer period till the release of GNOME
2.0, and then start quick releases after that.

The solution to people thinking that we keep saying "Wait till you see
the next release" isn't to release it quickly, it's to stop having to
say it.

It reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where marketing has told the
customer about the new product, and hypes up the next version so much,
that the customer doesn't want the new one, they want to wait for the
next version, cos it does EVERYTHING.

> Note that Debian explodes gnome-libs into a million little packages
> anyhow, despite us shipping them as one.
> 

But thats a users choice, they can go and get it as a million small
bits, or they can get it as one big thing.
If we ship it as a million small bits, they can only get a million small
bits, (even though Martin claims (and I've not reason to doubt him) that
he can create a large tarball....but what does that accomplish?)


> The point about dependencies I think is that people don't want extra
> stuff they aren't using. It's not about number of packages you depend
> on. The real objection here is about bundling together unrelated
> items.
>  

Actually from a conversation I had with the guy who forked gtkhtml one
of his reasons for not liking GNOME was he didn't want his users to have
to install it if they didn't have it.

> It should be:
>  libbonobo->libgnome
> 
> That is, a component system is logically on the lowest level, and used
> to create a desktop environment, rather than vice-versa.
>  

Well, I was thinking of libgnome being the stuff that doesn't need a
component system, like the gnome-utils.c stuff, and the ini file parser,
sound player...that sort of stuff. but maybe I'm wrong in this view.

iain