Re: canvases in 3.0 [was Re: Steps to get to GTK+ 3.0]

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 10:31 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> > I really like the obvious sanity of your gtk-with-scene-graph idea, but
> > I do wonder when it's likely to happen.
> >
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't *expect* it to happen - I mean, it's
> completely feasible if the right person worked on it, but there's no
> guarantee the right person will show up, so we can't count on that.
> And even if someone hacked on it, it would take a long time to get
> done and merged.

If you (and your team) are not working on it then we know that nobody is
working on it, I guess. Thanks, that's actually useful information.

Then there's also no need for extended-layout to block on
gtk-with-scene-graph either.

> The intent is not to "stop energy" on a simpler more standalone
> canvas. I think such a thing would be worth doing, but, as I said, I
> think it's very challenging to figure out how to define the scope of
> what should be included in GTK and then from there understand which of
> the many canvas projects is the right model for what should be in GTK.
> And I don't *expect* this to happen either, for basically the same
> reason as the scene graph - there's no guarantee the right person will
> show up.
> 
> For both of these canvas projects I think the right person is not only
> a good developer but also capable of articulating and defending some
> high-level points about the goals and non-goals of the canvas project
> so everyone can reach a shared understanding on that.
> 
> As always in free software, we know some people will show up and do
> *something*, but we can't count on people showing up to do anything
> *in particular*.
> 
> Havoc
-- 
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com