Re: gtk 2.8 for gnome 2.12

On 7/21/05, Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com> wrote:
> Hello,
> > > We know that the testing at most has been running for six days.
> >
> > No, you don't.  You asserted it.  And it happens to be false.  ;-)
> How exactly have you been testing Gnome with Gtk 2.7.3 for more than six
> days, I would love to know what kind of time machine you have.

The original context of that discussion was:

Luis: "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."

Miguel: "For how long has the QA team been running a Gtk 2.7.3 based desktop?
 And what kinds of tests have been done?  I mean to get an idea of the testing
 happening in this area that lead to this very strong endorsement.
 We know that the testing at most has been running for six days."

E.g. Luis was talking about testing gtk+ HEAD and 2.7.  For some
reason I was only going off the latter of your above paragraphs; I
apparently didn't catch that you had changed the discussion to just
2.7.3 and your implication (or at least that's how I read it) that
testing of gtk+ 2.7.2 and other previous versions was irrelevant to
making the decision to go with gtk+ 2.8.  I apologize.  You are right
that we tested gtk+ version 2.7.3 for under six days.
> > > This is a breach of the time-line and a breach of deadlines that we have
> > > imposed upon ourselves to follow.
> >
> > We can't stick to a plan that doesn't exist.  As pointed out by
> > others, Gtk+ 2.6 with Gnome 2.12 was _never_ planned.  Yes, gtk+-2.6
> > for Gnome 2.12 was discussed as a contingency plan, and some wanted to
> > make it the plan, but that is it.
> Am talking about the time-line here:
> You might want to familiarize yourself with the dates.

I am very familiar with the dates.  You may want to familiarize
yourself with the modules linked to from that page.  It lists gtk+
head, NOT gtk+ 2.6.  That wasn't a recent change either; see the
original version of that page created in May:

In other words, our original plan was to ship with gtk+-2.8 and we did
not deviate from it.  I am sorry that you misunderstood the plan.  We
should probably take measure to avoid such confusion in the future.

> > Nope, another incorrect assertion; it was decided on d-d-l.  Also, the
> > gtk+ developers don't release 2.8.0 until it's stable.  Releasing
> > 2.8.0 is their way of saying it is stable.  Now, you want to come in
> > months after the discussions and final decision, and say that the gtk+
> > developers are not competent to determine stability of their product
> > and that the release team and QA teams were also wrong in their
> > judgement of whether to use it?  Gee, thanks.
> In June 8th the issue was first brought up, in a question asked by
> Frederic.  I do not see any consensus being reached on that thread.
> Then the second thread started this Monday (where a handful of people
> voted "yes"), so it is hardly an issue that was decided "months ago".

Sorry, I sometimes heavily edit while I type and it causes mistakes. 
Correct reading of that sentence should be "come in after the months
of discussions and final decision" instead of "come in months after
the discussions and final decision".  Definitely an error on my part
and I apologize.  I did not mean to say that you came in months later.

Hope that helps,

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