Re: Release schedule

[Tim Harrison]

Markus Hitter wrote:

> What makes you expect that an additional e.g. NSToolbar implementation 
> whould affect the stability of GNUstep? If it whould show effects other 
> than the expected ones, you just bring hidden bugs to the light of the 
> day, right?

No one is suggesting that adding NSToolbar, by itself, is going to make 
GNUstep unstable.  The problem is that GNUstep is unstable now, and 
spending the time to track Cocoa will take time away from fixing that 
instability.

One of the things I'm concerned about is the uncertain wording of the 
goals for GNUstep.  A solid mission statement would keep everyone coding 
in the same direction, and supporting a moving target is going to add 
more and more complexity to something that needs to be solidified, and 
maybe even simplified, and soon.

> After all, if you want to stay with OPENSTEP exclusively, GNUstep will 
> come to a standstill in a not too far future.

If you reread some of the emails, no one's saying that GNUstep should 
stay *exclusively* with OPENSTEP.  However, the general feeling (amongst 
anti-Cocoa-trackers, at least ;)) is that having a solid, non-changing 
base as a reference to work from is extremely important.  OPENSTEP 
provides that solid base.  One could code an environment straight from 
the OpenStep Specification, and the API would NOT change, which makes 
life a whole lot easier for developers.  Yet, no one is saying that 
GNUstep should be only an OpenStep/OPENSTEP clone, either.  The 
suggestion is that GNUstep should start with a solid OpenStep/OPENSTEP 
implementation, and possibly add technically superior and relevent code 
from either Cocoa, or of the project's own design.


--

Tim Harrison
address@hidden
http://www.linuxstep.org/