[email protected] wrote: > Hi, > > I went through the MeeGo 1.1 Compliance Specification > (v. 1.0.99.4) with people from Nokia MeeGo team.
Thanks, some good comments there. There's just now a new version which doesn't take into account these comments, but possibly the changes mitigate a couple of the concerns a bit. A lot of the "unknown" items are that way... because they are unknown. That is, nobody's come up with a versioning scheme, so it's unspecified. I haven't heard the ABI issues around hardftp/softfp really have a good answer across versions, so the spec only captures the current state. If there's something we can say that captures a future direction /that we know for sure/ we could look at that. The "versioning policy" is a good point, there may be some architectural decisions that have looked at that but I haven't heard it. What would make us flip from 1.x to 2.0? I'm sensitive to this because I've spent years on a project (LSB) that has had some real issues with this, for example a "Deprecation Policy" that says you must keep a deprecated feature for two major releases but then not defined a major-version cadence or policy (i.e. 3.0->3.1 was a huge transition that shoul have been a major version bump; 3.2->4.0 was rather a much smaller change) _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
