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

[Fabien VALLON]

On Mer 26 octobre 2005 18:00, Nicolas Roard wrote:
> 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..

The first goal.
Probably not the definitive, I agree.

I think it is a good, short, way to relase 1.0.
Focus on BSD/Linux/Cups/XFree/OpenStep only can help to :
- Finally have a release
- Finish some classes
- Finish some doc


> 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).

Of course,
But it is not the case, and it will never be OSX  ( current version )
compatible.

You will never release GNUstep if you follow Apple.

Having a 2.0 release with Cocoa ("10.2 compliance") or windows will take
longer.

I believe at the  "Release early release often".

> 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 !".

And ?
who cares.
It was hard work for the GNUstep developpers.
Those guys are just stupid, don't listen to them.

>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.

That not exclusiv.

Having ref. doc saying what should work and what should not would be great.
But not a "Panther compliant" release ( not for 1.0 ).

Fabien