RE: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)

> From: Sander Vesik [mailto:sander_traveling yahoo co uk] 
> To: Luis Villa
> > P.S. FWIW, my personal sense is that we need a 'bindings 
> release' or 
> > something like that- have latest *mm, py*, and *# (and 
> maybe gtk-perl, 
> > since I hear that is making a comeback) grouped together, 
> so that both 
> > the bindings and GNOME can get maximum publicity and 
> organization from 
> > it.
> > 
> Would this be a 'gnome desktop' or 'gnome platform' type of 
> release? That 
> is - are two consequtive releases of 'gnome-bindings' 
> supposed to be 100% 
> api/abi compatible? i'm not sure if the bindings have seen 
> enough use to 
> commit themselves to such

A "bindings release" probably wouldn't have 100% API or module _coverage_,
but it shouldn't be difficult to demand API/ABI stability for the major
bindings projects.

For instance, gtkmm 1.2, gtkmm 2.0, and gtkmm 2.2 have been very disciplined
about API/ABI stability. And gtkmm's schedule is now almost in-sync with
GTK+. libgnomecanvasmm, libglademm, and gconfmm are also API/ABI stable, but
we can't say the same for libgnomeuimm because of the Bonobo complications.
If there was demand for it then we would happily freeze libgnomeuimm as it
is, without the Bonobo stuff. We are just starting on gnome-vfsmm. 

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net 

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