Re: Release schedule

[Tim Harrison]

Chris B. Vetter wrote:

> In my opinion (that is, I'm only talking for my person), core/ should be
> a straight forward implementation of Openstep (whatever the correct
> spelling is ;-)

I very much agree with Chris on this point.  It's stable, unchanged, and 
provides an excellently documented base to work from.

If, for example, -base is, indeed, very much OpenStep compliant, it 
wouldn't be too terrible to go through, pull out the non-OpenStep stuff, 
set it aside, and clean up the rest.

> Once that is accomplished, it would provide a common foundation we can
> then use to implement "enhancements" in form of Cocoa classes and
> methods, as categories, bundles, whatever.

As long as they add value to the end product, yes.  However, my hope 
would be that one could retain the STRICT_OPENSTEP option, or some 
equivalent, or be able to only use the OpenStep compliant part of 
GNUstep, without causing problems.  That way, applications ported from 
OPENSTEP, or an application built using GNUstep's OpenStep core/ would 
be sure to run everywhere, with predictable results.

> Yes, I know that may be a bit naive, as such an approach is probably TOO
> straight forward, since Cocoa replaces or changes behaviour of already
> existing methods and classes.

See above.

(good lord, I use a whole hell of a lot of commas)


--

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