Jon Lapham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
that is a dead-end technology. And, I've been dissuaded from doing it in gnome2, because my work may not be usable until possibly 2 major releases from now (ie: years). How many others are in the same boat I
I would argue that if we DO go the route of 1.10 AND 2.0 (e.g. two major releases) it will be because the g2 port is taking MUCH longer than expected. If we get the help to finish the port in another 4-6 months then we wont need a 1.10. However if we do NOT get the help to complete the port then we'll be _forced_ to issue a 1.10...
Yet even if we release a 1.10, that will NOT delay the 2.0 release... The 2.0 release will happen when it's finished. The only question mark is if we'll need a 1.10, because the g2 port isn't finished and we NEED to get SQL, Lots, and Periods out there.
So I diagree with your conclusion (even though I do agree with your premise).
Of course, I understand what you are saying. You are saying that we cannot magically make the gnome2 port happen, it either is ready or not, and we need to have a contingency plan in place.
However, in a way, by simply stating this, it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The message that is sent is that the new features are more important than the gnome2 port (I'm not saying that this is true or not). Because of this, new developers must decide whether to work on gnome1 or gnome2... which leads down the road I described above.
I also believe that issuing a 1.10 release will *certainly* delay the 2.0 release. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is the reality. If we release a 1.10, we will be committed to a minimum of typing developer time up for a few months do to release issues, bug fixes, problem reports, documentation, etc. All these nifty new features you mentioned, SQL, Lots, Periods will all have their UIs written in gnome1 and later ported to gnome2.
IMHO the developers _ARE_ committed to a g2 port.
Never doubted this for a second. I'm just suggesting that a commitment to the next release being 1.10 or 2.0 will help organize the GnuCash community. Focus us.
But there are other issues involved in the release cycle to be considered. If I knew the g2 port would be finished in another 2 months then I'd agree with you that we should drop everything -- but I don't see that being the case, so I'm trying to be pragmatic and leave our options open for a "major" release between 1.8 and 2.0 in order to get features to our users.
Right, and this *is* the pragmatic position to take. Who could argue otherwise. However, I believe that us leaving the issue open is cause for some people to not know what if the most efficient way to contribute.
-- -**-*-*---*-*---*-*---*-----*-*-----*---*-*---*-----*-----*-*-----*--- Jon Lapham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Work: Extracta Mol�culas Naturais SA http://www.extracta.com.br/ Web: http://www.jandr.org/ ***-*--*----*-------*------------*--------------------*---------------
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
