RE: Gtk/Gnome release schedules

On Sun, 2003-02-09 at 15:44, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Kris,
> On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 19:48, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
> > Personally I don't like releasing 2.4 as a 2.2 + new fileselector. 2.2
> > was 2.0 + multihead and font stuff (which I personally didn't like
> > either, but was needed). If we make 2.4 a fast release again, just like
> > 2.2, we again won't have time to do other things which we have to get
> > done but take some time. As a result those things will be delayed for
> > sure, 2.2 also took more time than originally planned.
> 	Is it possible that the multi-head work was a very large, and extremely
> invasive change - that had to be thought through and a big patch-set
> pushed through lots of places ?

That is true, but from what I saw most of the work was finished in the
early days of the 2.2 cycle. But maybe I am mistaken.

> 	Surely the FileSelector, being an essentially standalone, aggregate
> widget + a chunk of new API, is a rather different matter ? surely this
> can be back-ported (should it be ready), and create a gtk+-2.4 with no
> other changes relatively easily ?

It probably isn't really standalone, as Havoc just mentioned. I don't
have much to add to that (:

> > I am afraid that the same situation will exist with 2.6, "oh we really
> > need this in gtk+ RSN, please do 2.6 soon!", and I don't think we should
> > go there. In the end we will never get some important other things done.
> 	Sure - that would suck. I'm proposing having a gtk+2.4 that is only the
> new file selector API, and _only_ if it's in some sense ready and
> approved. That then cannot add much more maintenance complexity and pain
> surely ?

I think the fileselector still has a pretty long way to go, as we don't
even know yet what the UI is going to look like. I think Owen got most
"low-level" details right in his talk though (and he should upload his
slides :). But I think it's far from being finished. And during that
time new features will have to stay even longer in libegg, or we would
have to branch early (and maintain three branches, which is pretty
painful too).


> 	Regards,
> 		Michael.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]