On 7/29/07, Yen-Ju Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/29/07, David Chisnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now 0.2 is released, we can start thinking about 0.3[1] seriously. > > I'd like to get a set of objectives for the release pinned down > > early, so we know what we are aiming for. I would say the two big > > ones are: > > > > - Documentation for everything. Every framework should have gsdoc > > documentation for every public interface at a minimum (documentation > > for the internal code is ideal, but not required). Every application > > should have some a users' guide. > > > > - No UI bugs outstanding. Every UI bug should be either fixed, or > > blamed on GNUstep (and, ideally, fixed and patches sent upstream).
I would like to have a conclusion regarding the dock. Dock serves many purposes, but also many controversies. First, it is a window switcher, which can be replace by AZSwitch. Based on screenshots of OS X 10.5, it is application switcher. In another word, all the window of the same application has to stay in the same desktop. Second, it is an application launcher. I personally don't like this idea. The solution is to have a menu shows all recently opened applications, say up to 20. In that case, users don't need to organize the dock anymore. The more frequently used application will be on the upper part of the menu. Third, it is a notifier (unread mail, message from IM, etc). If we have a notifier framework and probably a menulet for that, we don't need dock, either. Fourth, it provides limited contextual for a few action on application without make them active first. I am not sure it is really usefully except 'empty trash'. So my propose is to remove the dock. If you want to launch commonly-used applications, we add a menu for that on menu bar. If you want to switch window, use 'Alt-tab'. If you want to see whether you have unread mail, maybe we can show it with 'Alt-tab' (with some Xwindow trick) or have a notifier framework for that. What else is missing ? Yen-Ju > > > > I also want to put a prototype of CoreObject in 0.3. The current > > EtoileSerialise code now has a working implementation of COProxy, > > which serialises and stores every message sent to a proxied object. > > These invocations can now also be re-loaded and re-applied to other > > objects, allowing complete re-play of an object's lifespan. Adding > > branching to this will be fairly trivial, and the higher-level parts > > of CoreObject should be in a useable, if not polished, state in time > > for 0.3. > > > > What else do people want to see in 0.3? Localisation might also be > > on the list; see if we can start getting things translated a bit? > > > > David > > > > [1] Jesse want's to call 0.3 'Charm,' as in 'three's the charm,' and > > 'what a charming user environment you have there.' I don't have any > > objection, as long as we don't end up with names as silly as the > > Ubuntu releases. > > I don't really like such "code name" like 'Charm', or 'Ubuntu Dapper', > 'Edgy', or Gnome "Whatever you want to say" release. > First, I never remember which one is which version. > Second, it make searching more difficult. > For example, I want to fix my Ubuntu 6.10 for wireless with ppc. > I not only have to search 6.10, but also 'Dapper' if I remember it right. > Same as all the cats Apple have. > It is easy to remember at the beginning, > but I got lost after there are too many running around. > > Yen-Ju > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Etoile-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ Etoile-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss
