Dennis Leeuw wrote:
Hi Gregory,
To get to 1.0 I think a roadmap is needed. Looking at:
http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?group_id=99
Maybe someone should define which one of those tasks needs to be
completed before GNUstep can be 1.0. And those points should be made
more visible on the website, a
Alex,
--- Alex Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Leeuw wrote:
> > Hi Gregory,
> >
(( SNIP ))
> >
> > I agree with you that the OpenStep spec should not be leading anymore. I
> > think GNUstep already has out grown the spec. It should now stand on its
> > own feet, with own ideas and a
> Yes, and frankly this is a perfect opportunity to state that rule by
> unanimous or even near-unanimous consent is simply not a viable nor
> sustainable. People disagree. One cannot make everyone happy, nor should
> they try to in all instances. Currently, I feel the GNUstep project is
> try
Nicola Pero wrote:
Yes, and frankly this is a perfect opportunity to state that rule by
unanimous or even near-unanimous consent is simply not a viable nor
sustainable. People disagree. One cannot make everyone happy, nor should
they try to in all instances. Currently, I feel the GNUstep projec
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 04:33:37AM +0100, Nicola Pero wrote:
> I'm sure a great flame-fest will follow, please excuse me if I'll drop out
> of this thread at this point. ;-)
Actually, this is exactly the problem. This is how proposing something
on the GNUstep lists works:
1. Email the list.
2. G
Alright, let's stop arguing (which doesn't lead anywhere) and starting holes in
the air, but let's instead start some heavy-weight brain-storming for ideas on
how to implement the problems at hand. From the dicussions before we already
know that:
- GNUstep needs somewhat tighter management of it'
Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
Alright, let's stop arguing (which doesn't lead anywhere) and starting holes in
the air, but let's instead start some heavy-weight brain-storming for ideas on
how to implement the problems at hand. From the dicussions before we already
know that:
- GNUstep needs somewhat ti
On 2005-10-26 04:58:54 +0100 Andrew Ruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Email the list.
> 2. Get some decent replies, including some sensible ones from core
>developers and the like.
> 3. Crap ensues. Cover your head, it is coming down fast now!
> 4. Anybody with any say over the original p
On 2005-10-26 08:49:52 +0100 Dennis Leeuw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>> Alright, let's stop arguing (which doesn't lead anywhere) and starting
>> holes in
>> the air, but let's instead start some heavy-weight brain-storming for ideas
>> on
>> how to implement the problems
On 2005-10-26 08:49:52 +0100 Dennis Leeuw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it is a clear goal. Something we can all agree on, I don't think
there isn't anybody who doesn't want GNUstep to become 1.0. We just need a
list of things to be done and a timeframe.
Personally I see three, largely i
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On 2005-10-26 08:49:52 +0100 Dennis Leeuw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
Alright, let's stop arguing (which doesn't lead anywhere) and
starting holes in the air, but let's instead start some
heavy-weight brain-storming for ideas on how to impl
On 2005-10-26 11:05:05 +0100 Dennis Leeuw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not sure wiki is best for tasks ... how about defining tasks in the
GNUstep project task manager? We (well, Adam) could set up a new task
category for 1.0 release.
That would be cool. Is that related to the progress page? Si
> Actually, this is exactly the problem. This is how proposing something
> on the GNUstep lists works:
>
> 1. Email the list.
> 2. Get some decent replies, including some sensible ones from core
>developers and the like.
> 3. Crap ensues. Cover your head, it is coming down fast now!
> 4. An
13 matches
Mail list logo
