- From: Tim Janik <timj gtk org>
- To: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- Cc: Gtk+ Developers <gtk-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: gtk-hp-patches
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 04:49:08 +0200 (CEST)
On 23 Jul 2000, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Owen Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I'd agree it's a bigger patch than I like, but since both
> > of us (especially me) have posted patches of this size
> > which _don't_ split into neat chunks, I'm not too worried
> > in the big picture. The real problem is basically that we
> > never gave Havoc a final gohead to commit various parts
> > of this patch as he finished them.
> Yes. Tim, the problem is that most of these patches depend on each
> other (dialog/messagedialog requires stock icons requires style
> changes requires iconset/icon source requires pixbuf). Similarly for
> GObject in GDK; that stuff was all tied together, the patch couldn't
> be separated. The text widget stuff in this patch is not related to
> the rest, but it shouldn't require much review, since none of it is
> worse than what's in head already.
yes, i'm aware. and i paid attention to that in the process suggestion
at the end of my email.
> I'll incorporate all the suggestions from you and Owen tomorrow, and
> get a final patch together.
oh please, couldn't you at least go ahead and commit the first few items
i mentioned (text, progress) then rehash the remaining pixbuf inlining bits
and concentrate on the rest after that is committed as well?
without comparing the new patch line-by-line against the old one i doubt
we can make much sense out of a new monster, and that's exactly what i wanted
to avoid ;)
] [Thread Prev