On 10/26/05, Fabien VALLON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Yes, but an important point is an easy for a developer to see what is implemented is what isn't. We lack a bit of clarity here (that could probably be resolved via the doc system). > You will never release GNUstep if you follow Apple. Of course, I didn't advocate to hold GNUstep until we're 100% compatible with current Cocoa.. I was merely pointing that "OpenStep" compliance is not really relevant today. > Having a 2.0 release with Cocoa ("10.2 compliance") or windows will take > longer. > > I believe at the "Release early release often". I completely agree with you. > > 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. Well, my wording was perhaps not right; what I meant is, you can't boast a lot on OpenStep compliance when releasing a 1.0 when this actually has very little importance for most of the people -- it's counter-productive if you want to attract people. Of course, it is important; just not a good "attraction" argument, and can even be turned into a bad argument. I was just pointing that. > >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. Of course. I don't care even about % of compatibility, but it's just that we should have clearer presentation of what's actually available/possible with GNUstep and the degree of compatibility with OSX (imagine a cocoa dev going to gnustep.org for the first time and trying to figure if its cocoa software can be ported to gnustep, and what difficulties he can encounteer). > Having ref. doc saying what should work and what should not would be great. > But not a "Panther compliant" release ( not for 1.0 ). yep. -- Nicolas Roard "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev