Re: Clearlooks and GNOME 2.12

[Thomas Wood <thos gnome org>]

On 19 Jul 2005, at 10:26 pm, Danilo Šegan wrote:

> Today at 22:42, Richard Stellingwerff wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'd really prefer to keep distributing standalone
> > packages, since it allows me to do more frequent releases.
>
> Nobody would object if gtk-engines got more frequent releases. :)

In fact, I'm planning a release soon, since I've just closed quite a 
number of outstanding bugs.

Incidentally, this will be the 5th gtk-engines release in 7 months, 
compared to no releases in the 2 years previously.

> I.e. this should not impact a decision, since if clearlooks is
> included and maintained inside gtk-engines, you could ask for releases
> as often as you wish, or even more likely, do them yourself.
>
> I can't imagine anyone complaining about someone else doing the work :)

Not at all, I would be more than happy for you to maintain clearlooks 
in gtk-engines.

If there have been any updates since the last time gtk-engines was 
updated with your development version of clearlooks, let me know and we 
can go about updating it before the next release.

> > I'm not terribly aware of the release schedules and procedures of
> > GNOME. As I understand, a few weeks before the new release there will
> > be a feature freeze. How would this apply to Clearlooks?
>
> You'd switch to bug fixing mode for around two months.  New
> development might happen on another branch (HEAD), while this one is
> stabilised.  Though, I'm not sure if gtk-engines follows Gnome or Gtk+
> schedule (they're different).

We're sort of following the Gtk+ schedule in that we're currently using 
our major/minor version number to indicate which version of Gtk+ we 
require (i.e. 2.6 at the moment). However, we're releasing a micro 
version every time there have been a number of bugs fixed, rather than 
sticking to any timed schedule.

-Thomas