Re: Release schedule

[Philippe C . D . Robert]

On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 02:49 AM, Chris B. Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 01:41:07 +0100 (BST)
> Nicola Pero <address@hidden> wrote:
> [...]
> > vaguer to prevent users from being upset - I know OPENSTEP
> > compatibility is easier, but it's also pretty irrelevant as few
> > OPENSTEP systems are in use today, while Cocoa compatibility, while
> > more difficult, is much more relevant, as there are a lot of Cocoa
> > systems around.
> > Most users interested in compatibility are interested in Cocoa
> > compatibility.
>
> You're absolutely right, but again: What good is Cocoa compatibility, 
> if
> that compatibility stands on wonky legs?

Why do you say so? GNUstep seems to be pretty stable, and where it is 
not, patches are welcome. Moreover adding classes which originate from 
Apple and not from the OpenStep specs does not automatically imply that 
it is bad stuff (although I agree that not all new classes are that 
impressive ... ) nor that it impacts the quality of the GNUstep 
implementation.

So to me the basic question here is do we want to fork or not. If we 
do, then I am fine with that, but it has to be made clear, and if we 
don't then we have to make sure that we come up with something which is 
as close to the commercial side of OpenStep (which is Cocoa in these 
days) as possible.

-Phil
--
Philippe C.D. Robert
http://www.nice.ch/~phip