Re: The goal of GNUstep 1.0 (Why Unanimous Consent Doesn't Work)

[Nicolas Roard]

On 10/26/05, Adam Fedor <address@hidden> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fabien VALLON
> >
> > For the 1.0 release, what do you think about an
> > "OpenStep-compliant release" ?
> >
> > - This is the first goal of GNUstep.
> > - There is already some bugs to fix for "OpenStep-compliants" classes.
> > - There is already documentation for "OpenStep-compliants" classes.
>
> Well, it's a bit boring. People will say, 'hey, you've caught up with 1999'. 
> Anyway, we're pretty much OpenStep
> compliant except for some trivial methods.

I agree; OpenStep-compliance shouldn't be anymore the definitive goal anyway..
By that I mean that if there are some obscure deprecated methods that
we don't have yet, I'm not sure it's worth implementing them/delay a
1.0 just to claim "hey we're _fully_ OpenStep compliant !" -- it's not
like many people care about that (they care about OSX compatibility if
anything else).

Same way, I don't think it's a good idea to orientate the 1.0 as
"Finally OpenStep-compliant", because as you say, the epidermic
reaction will be "yeah, good job guys, only 11 years to do it !". It
would be more interesting to say something along the line of "we're
OpenStep compliant, we have our own additions, plus we are x%
compatible with Panther/Tiger ...", etc.

--
Nicolas Roard
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
  -Arthur C. Clarke