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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
