On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:20:04PM +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote: > Personally, I feel that is wrong - that kind of attitude to 2.x. It is > (not "was"!) a stable and solid foundation. While we are floating into > new and dangerous waters of 3.x (still risking getting into the > situation KDE folks had: "KDE 4.0 != KDE4"), at least we could make a > couple of small things here and there - allowing them to coexist, for > smoother transition. I know that is always a question of resources, as > usual - but if some things cost nothing, why not buy them?
You will still have GNOME panel available. Other than that, loads of things will use gsettings instead of gconf. I don't see why'd you want GNOME 2.x? What is the point? Ensuring that distributions will at least show a few GNOME changes in April even if they don't want 3.0? We've already released 2.32 as an extra release just because GNOME 3.0 wasn't ready. Now everything is focussing finally more on really releasing 3.0. For 2.x we still have the 2.32.x releases. But backporting is to me not what focus should be upon. The 3.1/3.2 cycle will be shorter so distributions will more quickly get the feedback we will surely get from 3.0. If some distribution wants to handle this differently, they're free to 'git clone' and submit patches. -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list