Re: GNUstep version number(s) (was: Re: GNUstep article (was: Re: gnustep compared to other toolkits))

[Nicola Pero]

> > the problem is, a more general GNUSTEP_VERSION does not make sense any
> > longer.
> > gnustep-make, gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, gnustep-x?ps are now separate
> > packages, which can (and are) released at different times with different
> > version numbers.  Each one should have its own version variables.
> 
> I agree. However, people ARE looking for a more general version.
> Imagine the following:
> 
> - "Hey, what version is GNUstep you are running?"
> - "Oh, I have make-1.0.2, base-1.0.0, gui-0.9.0 and xgps-0.6.9..."
> - "Never mind"
> 
> See what I mean? Though each package has it's own version number, there
> should be one to reflect the over-all status, even if it's the one of
> the package with the lowest version number (that is x[d,g]ps)

Hm - I already gave you the technical answer - that is why we can't define
the version in the headers anywhere - about version numbers for the users,
releases etc, that is going out of technical and getting into the realms
of marketing/releasing/opinions :-) so don't take the following too
seriously, it's just my opinion and I might be wrong (or might change my
mind in the future), someone with a better understanding of marketing
issues might give us better suggestions.

Anyway - here's my opinion - I think part of our current `marketing'
effort should be to communicate to users and developers the concept that
gnustep *is* composed of different parts, which *are* at different stage
of development.

people should not think that because Gorm running on DGS is not ready for
the end user, then gnustep as a whole is not ready for usage.

the fact this idea is so widely spread is a problem - because gnustep-make
and gnustep-base, which are at least half of the whole story - are
perfectly ready for the end developer.

this is our current major `marketing' problem - we have probably the best
available non-graphical OO framework for GNU/Linux, we have it running and
working, we have used, fixed, debugged, optimized most of it, we are at
release 1.0.2, and nobody out there knows about it !  because when they
think of gnustep they think of it only as the full thing, or if not, they
only think about it as the graphical stuff.

I am for having the full thing - I am for having the whole of gnustep
finished - but it's also very important that we sell efficiently what we
already have - that we bring our products to the users.

gnustep-make/gnustep-base provides you with highly advanced, state of the
art, easy to use stuff for non-graphical OO stuff which nearly ridicolizes
the competitors in the GNU/Linux market.  And it's done - stable - ready
for use - a finished product !  We need to find a way to tell that to the
world.  IMO the marketing approach to that is to try to sell it as a
separate product from the less advanced gui stuff.  we don't want the idea
that the gui is not yet complete shadow the fact that the base libraries
are done!  this is one of the reasons why we have made the `GNUstep
LaunchPad' as a separate product I think - to mark the difference between
that product, and the gui product (which is not at all bad anyway).

in brief - the concept for the masses is -

the gnustep gui stuff will rock and kick asses when finished; but the
gnustep non-gui stuff rocks and kicks asses *ALREADY* *NOW*.

to bring this concept forward, we need to have clearly different release
numbers between gui and non-gui stuff.