Commitment to gnome2 port

[Jon Lapham]

Derek Atkins wrote:
> Jon Lapham <lapham at extracta.com.br> 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  <lapham at extracta.com.br>          Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
  Work: Extracta Moléculas Naturais SA     http://www.extracta.com.br/
  Web: http://www.jandr.org/
***-*--*----*-------*------------*--------------------*---------------