Good idea :) In Christ, Ryan
Sent from my iPod On Apr 16, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schins...@gmail.com> 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 There's massive amounts of outdated information about Ubuntu 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 > > -- > 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 -- 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
