Christian Marillat wrote: > >>>> "ACPI" == Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ACPI> Hello, > > Hello, > > ACPI> I'm curious, what's the target GNOME release of woody? Should we be > ACPI> aiming for a rock-solid 1.2, or are we confident that 1.4 will be stable > ACPI> enough by woody's freeze? Has any thought been given to this in terms > ACPI> of consistency of packaging new upstream releases? > > For the last schedule see : > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-devel-list/2000-October/msg00010.html > > "In my estimation, end of November/ early December should be the target > date." > > And for the latest announce : > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-1.4-list/2000-December/msg00004.html > > I've seen in gnome-devel "don't expect big changes in Gnome 1.4 like 1.0.50 > --> 1.2.0"
I see, this makes sense. I was thinking it might include Nautilus and Evolution, though I suppose those are more like apps than core/libs types of things. I guess we'll see if they finally increment the soname of bonobo. :-) It's a bit disconcerting to look at ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/unstable/sources/ and see very few new releases in the last four months. I guess this means there's a change of strategy, where unstable 1.3.x material only appears in CVS, then will be released all at once as 1.4? Then again, I don't remember many 1.1.x releases until 1.1.90. BTW, I've been using 1.2 for a while now, and really like it. It feels quite a bit faster on my old 160 MHz PPC 603e than 1.0.5x did! Thanks for the clarification/update, -Adam P. Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!
