GNOME 3.22 Schedule Published This Week

[phoronix]

Phoronix: GNOME 3.22 Schedule Published This Week

With GNOME 3.20 having been released this week, developers working on the desktop stack have already firmed up their release schedule for the next six-month update, GNOME 3.22...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GNOME-3.22-Release-Schedule

[Tomin]

They are already planning 3.22 and I haven't even tried 3.20! I guess 3.20 should drop into Arch Linux quite soon (or I should try gnome-unstable).

GNOME 3.20 Beta on 17 August

That should probably be "3.22 Beta" or something.

Edit: Apparently it's "3.21.90 beta release" in their wiki so it would be 3.21 beta?

[Ericg]

They are already planning 3.22 and I haven't even tried 3.20! I guess 3.20 should drop into Arch Linux quite soon (or I should try gnome-unstable).


That should probably be "3.22 Beta" or something.

Edit: Apparently it's "3.21.90 beta release" in their wiki so it would be 3.21 beta?

Calling it 3.22 Beta is fine. I really wish they (and every other project in existence) would lose the whole "Odd numbers are unstable" versioning scheme. It makes absolutely no logical sense.

[leio]

I wish every project in existence would properly use odd-even version numbering, and actually have stable branches to have a point in this versioning scheme.
As GNOME does it makes perfect sense, when you continue releasing stable cycle bug fix releases after development releases have gone out as well. And the .90, .91 and .92 have good notation of beta and release candidate as well, as it jumps closer to the next stable number.
Without this, you would have what? A 3.20.0 release, then a 3.20.901 alpha, then a 3.20.1 bugfix release off the 3.20.0 branchpoint, then a 3.20.902 alpha, 3.20.2 stable, 3.20.990 release candidate, or what...?

[Anvil]

wonder what the Features will be, prolly not much as it'll just be a tune-UP for Wayland to be made Default

[Ericg]

I wish every project in existence would properly use odd-even version numbering, and actually have stable branches to have a point in this versioning scheme.
As GNOME does it makes perfect sense, when you continue releasing stable cycle bug fix releases after development releases have gone out as well. And the .90, .91 and .92 have good notation of beta and release candidate as well, as it jumps closer to the next stable number.
Without this, you would have what? A 3.20.0 release, then a 3.20.901 alpha, then a 3.20.1 bugfix release off the 3.20.0 branchpoint, then a 3.20.902 alpha, 3.20.2 stable, 3.20.990 release candidate, or what...?

No... you do what every other project does, including the kernel, and call it "3.20 alpha 1", then "3.20 alpha 2", then "3.20 beta 1", then "3.20 beta 2", then the release candidates, then when it went stable you'd call it "3.20.0", then the first bugfix would be "3.20.1" etc.. Why on Earth would you jump around from .0 to .902 then back to .2 ? That's even crazier then their current schema.

[leio]

Call them how you like, like the 3.9x's are actually called beta, RC1 and RC2, but they also denote certain freezes (UI freeze, string freeze, code freeze). The release tarballs still need to carry a version that makes sense. Technical people still want to have their version numbers. gnome-shell-3.20_alpha2.tar.xz is just awful. Kernel sort of works out with their rc1 notation of merge window close, and just weekly/biweekly afterwards, that then happens to usually culminate in a final after rc6-rc8. In GNOME there are certain dates and deadlines for the cadence, so the development releases are all planned and known when they happen. The version numbers are all increasing and numbers, even SemVer likes it, though it doesn't talk about the odd version number specifically, but it's all good and increasing and following the basic premise therein.
The kernel had exactly this kind of versioning with odd and even in the past, until they ended up with a good flow that doesn't need a longer development cycle anymore (but doesn't give this level of release cadence either; and I hate this Ubuntu popularized cadence term though). In GNOME every component can have any number of releases with 3.odd.x where x is below 90. Some cut a release every official release date, some do more to get some important fixes out into non-git testers, some do fewer (usually skipping a number then to match the overall alpha release number of the whole). Then all of them do 90, 91 and 92 to prepare the whole together.
GStreamer is another such project doing this versioning, they don't have the .9x thing though. For them it can be important to get alpha release binaries out to Windows, Android, OSX platforms as these odd versioned releases (that come out showing in debug logs, etc too). Not sure what the people working natively on those platforms think of this versioning though.

[mjog]

wonder what the Features will be, prolly not much as it'll just be a tune-UP for Wayland to be made Default

I imagine Wayland support will be ongoing yeah. On the development side I'm hoping GSK (the new offical scene graph API GTK) will land in GTK+ 2.22 - having one that is integrated with the actual toolkit will be great. There seems to be a lot of things planned for GNOME itself though - Gamepad support in Games, week and agenda views in games, stuff like that.

[CrystalGamma]

They are already planning 3.22 and I haven't even tried 3.20! I guess 3.20 should drop into Arch Linux quite soon.

Last I checked, it was in testing repos. I don't have time to deal with potential system breakage right now (also, other that wayland stability improvements there aren't really interesting changes as far as I'm concerned), otherwise I would check them out.

[Gapil301]

Why Redhat even support this insanity. Throwing money on a DE that is totally unpratical