Re: gtk 2.8 for gnome 2.12

On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 15:18 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> 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.

There could or could not be significant issues in 2.7.  The point is its
not certain and it introduces significant *risk* to the schedule.  We
went through the same thing with 2.6 and it seems we learned nothing,
see your own original view:

As well as Andrew's:

Since the original worry is time based, I don't see what's changed.

This is from the main thread discussing this issue at the beginning of
June.  I'm not sure i share the view that there was consensus in this

> [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.

And why wouldn't you count an application that is actually part of
GNOME?  Guess we shouldn't count RH reporting on gtk/glib or Sun on

JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>
Novell, Inc.

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