Re: Possible emergency gtk+ release

[Jonathan Blandford <jrb redhat com>]

Tim Janik <timj gtk org> writes:

> On 1 Apr 2002, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> 
> > Hi Tim,
> > 
> > Just before 2.0.1 was released, a patch went in that inadvertently broke
> > GtkTreeModelSort.  This is resulting in lots of bugs in the current
> > GNOME Beta from people who use that object.  We can do two things:
> > 
> > 1) Quickly put out a 2.0.1.1 that fixes this bug
> 
> nope, this basically breaks the advantages we get out of
> versioning:
> - programs that break due to 2.0.1 can't depend on the fixed gtk
>   version
> - modules can't depend on the new release
> - there's no official tarball that libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0.0.2 corresponds
>   to (bad, especially for bug reports in third-party apps)

Okay.

> > 2) Put out a 2.0.2
> 
> > Tim, if we make a 2.0.1.1 release, is changing VERSION to explicitly be
> > 2.0.1.1 sufficient in configure.in (while keeping GTK_MAJOR_VERSION,
> > GTK_MINOR_VERSION, and GTK_MICRO_VERSION at 2, 0, 1).  Will this cause
> > other problems?
> 
> i've put up a tentative 2.0.2 release at
> 
> 	http://www.gtk.org/~timj/gtk+-2.0.2.tar.gz
> 
> i'd apprechiate if people could give it some testing.
> gtk gets out of sync with glib this way, but that's not too bad, we can simply
> jump the glib version number by 2 next time, so we'll have glib-2.0.3 and
> gtk+-2.0.3 in sync again.

I just tested it.  It seems to be fine.

> need to leave for university now, i'll release the above tarball in a couple
> of hours if no more problems arise.

Please do,
-Jonathan