Ah geez, again I foolishly fail to remember that phrasing things a
certain way results in Slashdot
articles which inevitably have misleading headlines and summaries.
For the record, my point is not that we should do a GNOME 3
(especially right now), and it definitely isn’t that I
personally intend to do a GNOME 3. It’s that if someone did
a GNOME 3, the right way to do it is to create a fairly long-lived
branch (aka fork) of the project while continuing the GNOME 2.x series
on a 6-month cycle in the meantime. I’m responding to other people’s
blogs here, rather than proposing something.
And for the record I don’t think conservatism in GNOME 2 is bad, it’s
just different. The important point is to recognize that you can’t do
two things in one branch. Doing it all in one place results in both
breaking the crap out of current users, and failing to innovate
or do interesting things. So you split them apart. This is also
lower-risk; if the innovation fails, then you just drop the branch.
(This post was originally found at http://log.ometer.com/2005-04.html#21.3)