I am not saying about backporting, of course! That would be a waste of resources. I am saying that distros shipping gnome 3.0 will most probably provide safe harbor with gnome 2.32 (+all possible fixes). It could be a nice and friendly gesture - to help them a bit. But if gnome does not care, that's just it.
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Olav Vitters <o...@vitters.nl> wrote: > 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