Re: GTK+ Website Review - Final Draft

25 mar 2008 kl. 08.58 skrev Murray Cumming:


On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:26 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 15:41 +0000, Martyn Russell wrote:
Murray Cumming wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 13:16 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
And I still believe that the official GNOME bindings deserve to be in
separate section.

I see that the site is live already. Please don't just ignore this
regression. I've mentioned it before too.

Hi Murray,

We are not ignoring it, it is a planned change. There are one or two and we have had quite a few improvement requests since going live - we will
be getting to it soon.

This still hasn't happened and it's still infuriating me that the page
was broken. Why can't I just fix this page as I used to keep it
maintained before?

Just a -1 from me regarding splitting out the official GNOME bindings.

I agree that in most cases the quality for only GTK+ is better in these but it's not given and GTK+ is not only for GNOME. The GNOME bindings include (and require) a wider set of library bindings than GTK + bindings.

If you want to split the tables up, I suggest that the split is on up to date bindings rather than whether they are in the GNOME bindings package. But then again, that is pretty easy to see already.

Maybe just put a little marker on the bindings that are "official" GNOME bindings?

C++ [1]
Perl [1]

[1] Included in the official GNOME bindings.

  Mikael Hallendal

Imendio AB,

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