On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:39:08AM -0400, Josh Sled wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 11:18 -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > > > If it only works as well as 1.x, why are users going to be any more > > pleased with g2 than 1.x? Do you think the average user knows and > > cares what libraries their acct package uses? > > No, but they do care that they can package-management-install it and get > it up and running in a spare evening. That capability is being > threatened.
Good point. Users will be annoyed if GC becomes more difficult to install. > > > > I think that the survival of GC depends on maintaining (nay, > > *gaining*) *developers*. A growing user-base is an incidental > > consequence of a high-quality program, which is determined by > > developer labor quantity and quality, which is a function of the > > condition of the code-base. > > The best developers are those that are users, and decide to "upgrade" to > being devs ... either with a small patch or more active development > involvement. > > > > I'm sorry I can't tell you what you want to hear. IMO, attracting > > devs is more important than releasing g2. As for cause and effect, > > the former can cause the latter, but the latter will not help the > > former. > > Attracting more devs is more important than releasing G2, but releasing > G2 will allow a larger user-base, which *will* attract more devs. > They're both important. I agree that they're both important and I agree that a larger user-base leads to more *potential* developers. However, I think that the number of developers that successfully grok the code-base and make non-trivial contributions, is NOT LINEARLY CORRELATED with the number of would-be users-turned-dev who check-out the CVS to see if they can scratch their itch. Therefore, I don't believe releasing g2 will increase devs of the first type. Instead, I believe the number of would-be users-turned-dev who become contributing devs is directly correlated with the ease of grokking the code-base. Basically I'm saying: what's the problem with GC now? It's not lack of popularity; it's not lack of users; it's not absence from distros. It's lack of devs, which is, I believe, caused by the complexity of the code-base. Releasing G2 would be great, but after releasing G2, the answer to the question "Ok, what's the problem with GC, *now*?" would be exactly the same. And so would the solution. > > But with respect to "major architectural changes", the largest and > highest-value one to be made right now is dropping the gnome1 > dependencies. Moreover, since we've already started doing it, we should > _finish_ it before starting new projects to prevent cross-contamination. > More moreover, we *can* do another release without any new features, but > *not* without finishing the G2 port. Just FTR, I think new features are pretty low on the priority list. -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel