[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: why do we need change?

From: Dennis Leeuw
Subject: Re: why do we need change?
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:40:01 +0200
User-agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050817)

Actually I think Riccardo has some valid points.
I would love to see Cameleon integrated into -core, but marketing wise I think releasing GNUstep 1.0, would do us more good then anything else.

With a 1.0 release the exposure we get from all the news sites would be tremendous. So a feature freeze (a stable API would also make it more easier to write apps, no more messages telling people to use the GNUstep CVS version to get a certain app running) and fixing the remaining issues might actually be a good idea.

To get to 1.0 I think a roadmap is needed. Looking at:
Maybe someone should define which one of those tasks needs to be completed before GNUstep can be 1.0. And those points should be made more visible on the website, as to get peoples attention. All other stuff should be done in a post 1.0 branch or even not excepted, until after the 1.0 release.

The old website had a clear list of ToDo things for every release, and I can not find that anymore. Maybe it would be good to recreate that on the progress page:


Riccardo wrote:

I will put my thoughts down very bluntly thus try to get the meaning and don't stop too much on the form.

My question is essentially... "why do we need a change in gnustep"? The pope recently said "continuous change is evil". ANd I agree, it is one of the things that in computing is disturbing me most. You need to accomplish task X and are using tool Y. Tool Y requires library A and B. Now you have a bug in Y. Suddenly you realize that there is no bug fix, but you need to upgrade Y to Y2... but Y2 does require version A2 which.. stupidly requires a tool Z2 to just get (any hint to svn is purely coincidental) it and it might even happen you might need a new compiler to build the whole thing. And you end up discovering that things changed too much, you need to relearn everything, your preferences are lost and at the end you are just frustrated.

I am not advocating to stop every change, but just to ponder changes and additions carefully, the more they are low level and at the end gnustep core itself is the foundation of everything.

This to write that personally I don't feel all that urgent change in -core of gnustep! People seem to hint we need a revolution and powerful tools to do it, but I think -core is already in a powerful shape that could lead to the writing to a whole OS with applications (aren't we almost openstep?).

What I think we need most now is an evolutionary approach in fixing and stabilizing the core itself and providing the best tools for development and a desktop environment. This is a way to get exposure, to stabilize things and getting a "good" release on which to build upon later without spreading our resources too thin. Also, the only way of finding weak spots in a library is to actually use it to build a lot of serious stuff and not just dreaming of integrating the latest and coolest technology we have heard of.

Once we have done our "gnome 1 with gtk1" step using current tools we might think what to do next. I personally would think weary about a step like doing gtk2/gnome2 at the beginning, but it is too easy to speak now. Since we have a cousin which gets developed and is called macosx it can be wise to keep an eye on it too.. but the current approach which is "try to do a bit of everything" is not proving out well with our current limited set of resources. Of course, this too, may change.

So it might be interesting not only to think about a "gnustep roadmap" but a "gnustep environment roadmap" trying to think in a broader view.


Gnustep-dev mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]