On 04/02/2013 07:45 AM, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote: > > Hello folks, I agree with most of the comment from Emmanuele, so I will not repeat them, but I will add some comments.
> > We've been having some discussions in the marketing team regarding > frequent (and valid) criticism regarding the availability of > extensions after a release from the community at large. I know that this question can sound harsh, it is not my intention: In which sense those criticism are valid? AFAIK, there isn't any place on gnome-shell documentation (on gnome-shell itself, live.gnome.org, etc) saying that gnome-shell would provide a stable "API" to the extensions. So unless their criticism is based on a lack for a explicit disclaimer saying that, I don't see how a criticism related with a extension stopping to work after a release could be valid. > > We should prepare an image for porting extensions prior to code freeze > so that we can give extension writers a chance to port their > extensions over. Who is 'we'? What do you mean for "image"? Do you mean adding a new period on the GNOME schedule in order to port extensions? > We should probably put a disclaimer that we reserve the right to > modify some extensions explicitly to make it work with our release. > Given that the license for most extensions is the GPL, this should > not pose a problem? As others said, I really think that the best candidates to update a extension due a gnome-shell release are the extensions writers, and not 'we'. > Essentially, I want to bring extension writers in as part of the > GNOME release mechanism. I agree that it would be good to make extension writers life easier. But as I said, as part of bring them in, I really think that if they are interested, they should be the ones porting the extension they wrote. BR -- Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
