Re: GtkHtml 1, 2 and 1->2

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:17, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 
> Luis Villa <louie ximian com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 12:56, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > > <quote who="Michael Meeks">
> > > 
> > > > GtkHTML1		GtkHTML2
> > > > actively maintained	not maintained
> > 
> > So, in reference to that second column, what should I be doing with
> > gtkhtml2 bugs for the 2.0 release? Any thoughts? Is this something that
> > should also be getting the proposed/soon-to-be 'this is unmaintained,
> > sorry' auto-email treatment?*
> 
> I don't think so, I think we need gtkhtml2 to mostly work for 2.0 and
> need to fix bugs in it.

But is anyone actively doing that? That's the gist of my question,
mainly. I'm definitely not saying we should close bugs without fixing
them- they need to be there for anyone with time to look at. I'm just
wondering if I and others should waste our time asking the 'maintainers'
questions if they are just going to get bit-bucketed or indefinitely
delayed.

Luis
_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers