Re: GTK+ 2.12 schedule?

[Sven Herzberg <herzi gnome-de org>]

Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 15:25 +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
>   
>> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 15:17 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 15:01 +0100, Kristian Rietveld wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 01:45:11PM +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Could we agree on a schedule for GTK+ 2.12, please? I'd really like to
>>>>>           
>>>> Since nobody complained about the schedule we devised at FOSDEM and I mailed
>>>> to the list in my minutes a few weeks ago, I guess that will be our
>>>> current working schedule.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> know for sure that it will be ready for GNOME 2.20.
>>>>>           
>>>> I personally object to guaranteeing that GTK+ 2.12 will be ready in time
>>>> for GNOME 2.20.  Yes, we should try to stick to a schedule everybody
>>>> agrees with, but I don't want to rush out a release to be ready in time
>>>> for GNOME 2.20,
>>>>         
>>> Please let's try. It would be shame to have two GNOME releases with no
>>> new GTK+ features.
>>>       
>> It would be a shame to ship a broken GTK+ just because GNOME needs it,
>> just as it happened before. The goal should IMHO be to ship a GTK+
>> that is as polished as possible within reasonable time, and *not*
>> to follow external release cycles that are partly driven by commercial
>> issues.
>>     
>
> That seems randomly anti-commerce to me. GNOME's release cycle isn't
> driven by commercial issues. It's an attempt to ship what is ready if
> it's ready, and to generally coordinate with other projects. GTK+ could
> use a similar strategy, I believe, though I agree that GTK+ bugs are far
> more critical than gnome-games  bugs.
>
> So trying doesn't mean that we'd have to ship a broken GTK+. But GNOME
> would decide quite soon whether they think GTK+ is likely to manage it,
> and I don't think you need to worry about them being too optimistic.
If you agree to ship what is ready if it's ready, then why not just rely
on the GTK+ 2.10 API and maybe release with GTK+ 2.12 (even if not using
the new API)?

Regards,
  Sven