Re: Gnome 2 infinity and beyond [was Re: Tango and 2.16]

["Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro" <gjc inescporto pt>]

On Qua, 2006-04-19 at 17:49 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> 
> >   Disagreed.  Let's not call it 3.0 just because we feel like it.  3.0
> > should mean API breakage point.  I still think that 3.0 should be a
> > number for developers to care about, and project Ridley is a different
> > thing.
> 
> It has been pointed out several times that at least glib and gtk+
> don't want to break API compatibility again.  Not anytime soon.
> Does it mean they have to stay 2.x forever?

  Why not?

  If gtk+ changes version to 3.0 without breaking API and without
allowing parallel install with 2.x, it is going to be very confusing for
developers.  Does the jump to version 3.0 have any real benefit?
Perhaps just some marketing benefit, but that is subjective; the
confusion caused to developers will be very real, though.  Even end
users could be bitten by this ("damn, program xpto requires gtk2 but I
only have gtk3, and gtk2 is not even in the repository! Damn this
distribution!").

  And calling gtk+ 3.0 for marketing could backfire.  Developers will
realise gtk+ 3.0 is basically just the same as the latest 2.x and thus
be disappointed.

>   No.  In fact the
> announcement of Project Ridley noted that the result of Ridley
> will be called gtk+ 3.0.

  Well, I don't agree with that part.  Just so you know there exists at
least one person who doesn't think 3.0 is a good idea.

> 
> behdad
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
-- 
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
<gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net>
The universe is always one step beyond logic