Re: Balsa 2.0
- From: Ali Akcaagac <ali akcaagac stud fh-wilhelmshaven de>
- To: balsa-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Balsa 2.0
- Date: 13 Jan 2002 01:21:06 +0100
On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 00:59, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> by my previsions gnome2 won't happen for most people before summer so i
> myself wasn't in a big rush :)
> someone asked --enable-gnome2 - imho it's possible but i'm not sure if it's
> a good idea cause it means having a lot of ifdef stuff for a short period of
> time. maybe a branch would be better, even if it means a bit of work merging
> it. pawel ?
there has been made too many changes in gnome2, gtk2, glib2 do you
really want to mess with this ?
- code maintainance is a hell
- one code for gnome 1 and gnome 2 how will you ever fix problems
for gnome 1 and gnome 2 that will become a hell of a work
- having both supported in one code will increase the possibility
that you get bugs inside the code.
- 2 separate branches.
- 1.3.x for gnome 1
- 2.0.x for gnome 2 (+ version bump)
a fine roadmap would be:
- keep 1.3.x for gnome 1 stable and bugfix
- create a new branch for 2.0.x and do a port only that it works
- if errors will be detected then backport them to 1.3.x too.
- after the port works (more or less) start cleaning up the
code e.g. with indent from ftp.gnu.org so the code at least
gets cleaned up one time (also galeon people did this not long
- kill redundant and dead code or try substituting with more common
and new coding.
- any other ideas (place here)
i would also vote for branching e.g. 1.2, 1.3, 2.0 (becomes head) so
whenever we release one version of balsa we start a new branch only
to keep things common to other gnome apps.
this all needs a bit thought through too but thats my 0.2 (euro)
Name....: Ali Akcaagac
Status..: Student Of Computer & Economic Science
] [Thread Prev