On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Brent Smith wrote: > Chris Lahey wrote:
> > At conferences and LUGs, the marketing message is always about the 6 > > month release and the idea of just putting off features until the next > > version, but what if we combined the two ideas? Have a release every > > 6 months as we have been, but plan a set of features for 3.0 and when > > we hit that set of features, we change the numbering. Say we pick a > > set of features and in 2008 2.21 happens to match that set of > > features. Instead of going to 2.22, we go to 3.0. Nice and easy. > > > > Then we pick a set of features for 4.0 and so forth. > > > > What do y'all think? > > > > Chris > > > [snip] > > I think if we are targeting features, ... no not really, I wasn't suggesting targeting features any more than is done within the current 6 month release cycle. To rephrase what I said before Gnome 2.x is moving further and further away from Gnome 2.0. A change in major number would recognise that difference and be an opportunity to make it clear what is recommended and what is deprecated. (No I'm not advocating breakage, I hope compatibility can be maintained as lot as it is practical to do so and maybe a while longer.) -- Alan H. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
