I'm a fan of this for quality reasons.
Shipping very latest GNOME used to give Ubuntu a cutting edge feel, but
nowadays, shiny new Ubuntu features tend to come from Unity and
friends. The interesting new user-facing changes that GNOME brings are
(mostly) in Shell. So I don't think the default Ubuntu image would lose
much in terms of "staying relevant" by sticking to stable GNOME releases.
That said, the GNOME Remix would have a much harder time feeling cutting
edge.
-mt
On 15/10/12 13:50, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
Hey,
That's a "classic", we usually review our plans for GNOME for the next
cycle.
That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we stay
on stable GNOME this cycle, the reasons are (in random order):
- tracking unstable GNOME is taking lot of resources that we don't
invest in our desktop (packaging a new stack every 3 weeks, dealing
with transitions, regressions, etc)
- our desktop is quite less "stock GNOME" than it used to be, which
means we have extra integration work to do and it's less trivial to do
those "on the way" during the cycle
- GNOME unstable series and Ubuntu "working every day" are hard to
conciliate goals
- GNOME is not communicating early enough on what is coming for us to
discuss next cycle at UDS (see nautilus 3.6 in quantal)
- GNOME is shipping stables with transitions half done (see gstreamer
1.0 this cycle) which is not something we want in Ubuntu
- our "feedback loop" with GNOME is not really working nowadays, they
don't have time to look at most bugs and we hit regressions and sit on
them until somebody on our side has time to look at them, which means
neither GNOME or us benefits much from tracking unstable GNOME...
On the con side though:
- it gives us less opportunity to work with upstream on resolving issues
- we don't get early feedback on what is happening
- the new version of libraries might have APIs our app writers might
want to use
Comments?
Seb
--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
