So in short, what you're saying in this entire thing is: Guys, lets just follow http://semver.org/
Right? Or am I missing something important? James Gifford On 04/16/2012 04:34 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote: > This is all about communication. > > Now we have the Unity 5.10 release which, if I understand correctly, > will be the last feature update of Unity before 12.04LTS is released. > This release is so important, I'd like to see it as the end of the old > Ubuntu and the beginning of the new one. I think that's important, > because it enables us to really clean up the mess in information and > communication out there, and that's what's causing the confusion and > anger. It's too difficult to provide simple answers. After all, there's > lots of things we wish we knew when we started, right? There's massive > amounts of outdated information about Ubuntu on the web. If we can tell > users to disregard information older than 12.04LTS, we make everything > much easier to understand. That also means we'll have to really seek out > old information and upgrade it, but that's a very precise goal, and > something I really think we can do. Then users can contribute by > notifying the Ubuntu community that some documentation is not upgraded > to 12.04. Anyone can do that. > > With regards to Unity, this is what I'd like to see. NotifyOSD, > AppIndicators, Lenses, Scopes, Dash, Launcher, Sound Menu, etc, are all > part of The Unity Specification. If there are changes to any of those > APIs in 12.10, then we'll refer to it as Unity Specification 1.1. If > there are any changes between now and 14.04LTS, then we'll refer to it > as Unity Specification 2.0 – even if it's identical to 1.1. There are a > few benefits from this approach: it'll make it easier to experiment with > APIs between LTS-releases without creating confusion. It'll make it easy > for documenters to know what has been updated. During the T-cycle > (14.04), we can just search for documentation that has not been upgraded > to 2.0. That means it needs to be reviewed. Might not be any changes, > but we review it and update it to 2.0. "External websites" can update > their code snippets and examples, etc. > > This will also allow us to refer to other implementations. For instance, > the Gnome Panel Indicator Complete applet can be referred to as a "valid > partial implementation of Unity Spec 1.0". This will make it easier to > spot what applets and plugins needs to be upgraded in order to work > across valid Unity Implementations. > > I really love the reference implementations of Unity. But what I love > even more about it, is the modularity it provides. The idea that LXDE > developers might create a Vala/GTK implementation of the Dash, using an > LxPanel plugin to support Indicators, for instance. But for that to > really work well, I think it's important to distinguish between the > implementations and The Specification. > > It should also make Unity more attractive as a development platform in > general. > > Can we please do this? It'll make it so much easier to communicate > properly. > > Thanks, > > Jo-Erlend Schinstad >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
