Before you change something, you need to have a reason to; this is more so if you want to change something that is working out pretty well, such as GNOME's release cycle. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a universally accepted reason to change GNOME's release cycle.
This leaves the GNOME >2 question unanswered. Because, how can you plan, code, and test such a major jump in just six months? If teams are already having problems with 2.x releases... Then how on earth can they manage the >2 release?? The solution has already been given: separate branches. Develop >2 alongside maintaining the current 2.x releases, much in the same way the KDE guys are working on KDE 4 while still updating KDE 3.x. Of course you can (and should, I think) always set a release plan for >2 while planning the whole thing; the point is: I think it is completely irresponsible to impose the same 6 months on >2 as on 2.x releases. I think most of you agree on that one. Anyway, all the above is pointless if GNOME, as Havoc pointed out, does not get going on >2 soon. With Microsoft gearing up for Vista, and KDE for KDE 4, I don't think GNOME can afford to dawdle that much longer. Thom Holwerda --- Managing editor at http://www.osnews.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:desktop-devel-list- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Nielsen > Sent: donderdag 7 september 2006 21:22 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: getting on a longer release cycled > > tor, 07 09 2006 kl. 11:24 -0700, skrev David Trowbridge: > > What in particular isn't possible with the 6-month cycle? > > I honestly don't think it's about the cycle length as much as the slight > fear we seem to have of setting major goals for the project. > > I doubt we can do Topaz within the comfort of our tried and true 6 month > cycle and we do need to decide what Topaz is going to be at some point. > As the honorable Jono Bacon put it, he would hate to go to GUADEC 2007 > and have Topaz still be something we talked about rather than actually > worked on. This is likely to require someone to take the probably > unappricated position of Topaz direction manager (or Topaz dictator, > asbestosuit included). > > Basically I think Hub has the right idea but the wrong approach. We need > to start thinking about what we want and if that requires us to extend > the cycle, do things in parallel or whichever solution we need then we > absolutely need to do it. > > - David Nielsen > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
