Emacs is more than 30 years old, gnome-shell is nearing 3 years since its first stable
release. When gnome-shell is this mature, I'm sure the extensions breaking will be
less of a problem :)
----- Original Message -----
On 11/04/2013 12:32 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> On 04.11.2013 12:18, Florian Müllner wrote:
>> So what do you suggest? We can either
>>
>> (1) restrict the functionality extension can provide (e.g. "add an icon
>> with a menu to the top bar" - of course that'd mean no alternate-tab,
>> shell-shape, alternative-status-menu etc.)
>>
>> (2) cease development of gnome-shell
>>
>> (1) will cause an understandable outrage as it would mean the end for a
>> large percentage of extensions, and (2) is not an option.
> Just see how others does this. Linux Kernel is one example, Django is
> another. This two projects from very different corners are able to
> provide stable API/ABI for some longer time period.
Emacs is probably a better example: It's extensible from within the
running process and shows that it is possible to provide quite a bit of
backwards compatibility in a GUI application without halting new
development. It uses a dynamically-typed extension language, just like
GNOME Shell.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct