Re: Release schedule

[Willem Rein Oudshoorn]

David Ayers <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> I still believe there is a viable amount of support for compatiblity
> of the OPENSTEP 4.2 implementation as there are still
> a.) real OPENSTEP Enterprise implementations out there, that
> continuously consider GNUstep as a potential strategy to provide a
> future for thier project.
> b.) real ObjC WebObjects implementations, with the same goal (the API
> of WO has already slightly advanced to a Cocoa like API though.)
> It would also supply a stable baseline that developers implementing
> for GNUstep exclusively can rely on.

My gut feeling says the same, GNUstep is most important for people
developping on OPENSTEP and ObjC WebObjects.

I do not want to be drawn into a long discussion about the statement
of direction (vision, goal or whatever you want to call it).

But let me do a concrete suggestion, improve the documentation.
And with improving I mean:

A - Declare which classes are completely implemented and which are not.
    (Implemented means, in code AND in well documented).
B - Declare the standards, like OPENSTEP, MacOSX, GNUstep, ...
C - Generate documentation that ONLY contains: Completed methods 
    belonging to the standards: GNUstep or OPENSTEP or both ...

This could give more visibility of where we are, what needs to be
done.  
As a nice side effect the quality of the documentation will improve.

Unfortunately this is a big task and people are not lining up 
to do this.  I have to say, myself included :-(.  But 
I will try to integrate my autogsdoc back into the tree and
implement some features in autogsdoc to support point C above.


Wim Oudshoorn.