Re: GtkHtml 1, 2 and 1->2

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Luis Villa <louie ximian com> writes:
> 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.
> 

I think we should try to respond to reports as they come in if
possible, to be sure we have info to reproduce the bug, etc.

Someone will end up going through these bugs, I'm pretty sure.
Or at least hopeful. ;-)

Havoc