Re: Release schedule

[Adam Fedor]

On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 02:57 PM, Chris B. Vetter wrote:
> > 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.
>
> If Cocoa related stuff was extracted from base/ and gui/ and placed in
> a seperate, say, cocoa/ directory, you'd only need a compile time
> option. Alternatively, the Cocoa header files could be wrapped in an
> #ifndef STRICT_OPENSTEP ... #endif.

While I think it would be useful to step back and make sure that we 
have a clean, working OpenStep implementation, I don't think it's 
useful to somehow separate the OpenStep parts of the system from the 
Non-OpenStep ones. Some of the changes in GNUstep from the OpenStep 
spec are as simple as a change in the return type of a method or 
trivial changes in method names. Some things you can't cleanly 
separate, some GNUstep extensions are required for the operation of the 
library (we've just made these extensions public rather than hiding 
them).

I think it would be better to clearly document where we have a 
complete, complient OpenStep implementation, and perhaps develop the 
testsuite to verify that it works correctly.