On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 11:28, Murray Cumming wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 10:51, Murray Cumming wrote: > >> Standard questions: > >> > >> 1. Is this a regression, compare to GNOME 2.6? > > > > No. (It was a GNOME-2.4 => GNOME-2.6 regression.) > > This is a mark against it. It suggests that it's not that serious. Well, Pango-1.4.0 was a lot more broken for CJK font selection than this (it was close to unusable), so I'm not sure anybody would have noticed. But yes, it's not a crasher, but rather an safef-fix I've gotten various bug reports on. > >> 2. How much has this been tested, to watch out for general horrible > >> brokenness elsewhere? > > > > Not a lot, > > Another mark against it. I trust your judgement, but I don't see a > compelling reason to take even a small risk with such a fundamentally > important part of GNOME at the last minute. Well, it will just mean that I'll do a 1.6.1 very shortly, with this change (and probably some much more intrusive changes) and people will use that instead of whatever was in the "official" GNOME-2.8. But since I said I'd stick to the GNOME release process, I'm not going to put it in without getting release team approval. Regards, Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part