Hi, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote: > And calling gtk+ 3.0 for marketing could backfire. Developers will > realise gtk+ 3.0 is basically just the same as the latest 2.x and thus > be disappointed.
This is an unfounded argument. With a 6 month release cycle, the next release is *never* going to be anything more that "the same as the latest 2.x" with some extra stuff. Firefox 2.0 is not going to be anything more that Firefox 1.5 with some extra stuff, Firefox 1.5 was Firefox 1.0 with some extra stuff. But the version numbers evolve anyway. Here's your yardstick: Look at GNOME 2.0. Now look at the latest GNOME release. Are these releases radically different? I'd say yes - we've improved the user experience with better integration, automatic detection of a bunch of devices with DBus and HAL, and a load of core applications have either been dramatically changed or replaced (Evince, Nautilus, Ekiga...). So here's the question - are we sending a message to people by sticking with a 2.x version? Would we be sending a message with 3.x? Is there anything wrong with bumping a major version number on an incremental release, if that increment means we're miles away from the .à release? To those questions, I'd say yes, yes, no. The message we send sticking with 2.x is a project that isn't changing very fast, the message we'd send with a 3.0 release number is of greater change, and no, I don't think we need radical change to allow ourselves to recognise that the desktop has come very far since 2.0 came out in 2002. That said, I'm not hugely passionate about version numbers, I have a tendency to think that bumping major version numbers when we get a little tired of the old one is a good idea, but between 2.16 and 3.0, I'm happy either way. It's not like it'll change the applications if we bump. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
