Re: Release 1.0 and checklist: this deserves your attention.

[Stefan Urbanek]

Citát Quentin Mathé <address@hidden>:

> Le 24 févr. 05, ŕ 14:00, Richard Frith-Macdonald a écrit :
> 
> > I think the context was an attempt to simplify things for end users by 
> > establishing an
> > overarching version for the whole 'system'.
> >
> > Frederic Stark raised the question of what is in 'GNUstep 1.0' ...
> >
> > I'm also not clear what the 'system' is supposed to be ... certainly 
> > at least the core.
> > Possibly including applicationss as well.
> >
> > I so no reason why 'GNUstep 1.0' should not consist of -
> > gnustep-make-1.10
> > gnustep-base-1.11
> > gnustep-gui-0.9.6
> > gnustep-back-0.9.5
> > Gorm-?.?
> > ProjectCenter-?.?
> > etc
> >
> > I guess it's whatever can be made good/workable as a package ...
> > At present, my feeling is it would need to consist of all the core,
> > plus Gorm and probably GWorkspace and also the applications
> > from backbone (Terminal etc) with a little polishing.
> 
> For me GNUstep 1.0 release should be no more than make, base, gui and 
> back (it could include Camaelon too).
> … then we could have GNUstep Development Environment 1.0 which would 
> packages Gorm, ProjectCenter, EasyDiff and few other dev oriented 
> utility applications like a profiling and memory checking applications.
> … and we could have GNUstep "Micro desktop environment" 1.0 which would 
> package GWorkspace and few other essential desktop oriented frameworks 
> like AddressBook, IconKit etc
> 

I agree with Richards and yours suggestion. Richard is right that we can take
any version that we agree on and pack it under one umbrella. And you are
somehow right that there should be no more than make, base and gui. To make it
more specific and not to reinvent the wheel, I am going to get inspiration from
another multi platform environment you are all familiar with.

- We should call the whole thing GNUstep 1.0 and it should include everthing you
have mentioned.
- The package should be split into two:
1. GNUstep Runtime Environment 1.0 (make, base, gui, back, theming, another
required modules for properely running apps, and perhaps GWorkspace and
Terminal - they will not hurt anyone)
2. GNUstep Development Environment 1.0 (GNUstep  Runtime Environment + gorm,
projectcenter, easydiff, ...)

If the user is going only to use GNUstep apps - he should get the runtime env.
If user is going to develop, he should get the develop env. The GWorkspace and
Terminal should be included in the runtime, as they are tools that will allow
users to handle GNUstep environment more easily and gnustep-naturally in
hosting environment.

Note that it is going to be for "the average gnustep user".

> I don't think parts of Backbone should be used, otherwise Backbone 
> project has no real interest by itself because it would became more or 
> less part of GNUstep. (… And as everybody loves to say : GNUstep is not 
> a desktop environment he :-)
>

No parts of any GNUstep based desktop environment should be used, even I would
like to see some. At least, not at this stage. Later we can consider inclusion
of other apps/tools, however I would rather pack them extra. Only after we will
see, that a majority of users is using certan combination of
applications/tools, then we can think about adding something to the -runtime or
to the -development environments.

Regards,

Stefan Urbanek
--
http://stefan.agentfarms.net

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win.
- Mahatma Gandhi