<quote who="Alan Horkan"> > > [1] Holy shit, just stop talking about version numbers at all. It > > totally doesn't mean anything useful. > > I understand you and most developers do not think it is important but > would it kill you to recognise that some people do* and it wouldn't hurt > to try and pin down when it might happen to something less vague than > "maybe later"?
I've been pretty specific about it, and haven't said it's "unimportant". > > Chris got it right. To fix the lack of agenda, we need to set an agenda > > that is independent of the release cycle - particularly for bigger goals > > that we think about for Topaz. That doesn't mean dumping the time-based > > releases. > > Agreed. How can I help make there be an agenda? Write code. Make things happen. That's ultimately what matters. > > There is *NO PRESSURE* to call something 'GNOME 3.0'. We can do it when > > we're ready. > > No one is saying when if ever we might be ready. You are not even saying > we wont be ready for at least another 2 or 3 releases and to stop asking > until then. No one here seems to think it is strange to have the 2.x > branch continue for updwards of 8 years but I cannot be the only one > looking in thinking it is a bit weird**. We're not going to bless something '3.0' because some people think '2.x' is weird. - Jeff -- GUADEC 2006: Vilanova i la Geltrú, Spain http://2006.guadec.org/ Hunch, n.: U.S. Foreign Policy. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
