Re: gtk 2.8 for gnome 2.12

On 7/21/05, Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 14:49 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > But there is no reason to tarnish Gnome's reputation because some people
> > feel that Gtk 2.8 is too cool to wait.  Shipping a slower, more fragile
> > version of Gnome and which in addition will not benefit for the most
> > part on any of the new 2.8 stuff (if people are following the rules)
> > seems like a loosing proposition.
> The QA team does not consider a GTK+ 2.8-based GNOME more fragile than a
> 2.6-based one. The QA team believes the issues involved in upgrading
> this component of the GNOME desktop are no greater than upgrading any
> other fundamental library.

Let me rephrase a little: the QA team[1] has been testing gtk 2.7, and
while we realize that gtk is deeper in the stack and as a result can
cause some deeply hidden and hard-to-debug bugs, at this point we feel
that gtk 2.7 is essentially as stable as 2.6 for the end-user, and
more importantly, bugs in 2.7 are being fixed quickly and reliably by
the gtk team; bugs in 2.6 are not.

[1] worth noting that if Novell is concerned about the stability of
HEAD, or the violation of promises about quality, Novell is more than
welcome to participate in the QA team. It would be even more exciting
if (like Ubuntu, or Red Hat) Novell distributed packages of unstable
releases to their users. But a quick check last night shows that
novell/ximian employees are not participating in very actively, filing
only ~1% of all bugs against the non-evolution core during this
calendar year; less than either sun or redhat.
> If you believe otherwise, please e-mail bugsquad gnome org and let us
> know your reasons. References to bug numbers would be helpful.

Seconded. If you believe gtk 2.7 is unstable, we need to know details
and know now; we appreciate the efforts taken by the many who have
actually used and tested it. Vague rumblings about potential
instability don't count- I already played that card, have taken the
plunge of using it, and have found it acceptable.


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