Re: Gtk+4.0

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 01:05:08PM +0000, Philipp A. wrote:
I tried just to read and not ask anything but no amount of reading has
resulted in any enlightenment, so:

Why not do what almost everyone does and have 4.X mean “stable” while
anything with alpha/beta/pre/rc means unstable?

KDE made the same mistake with the exact same version number, i.e having
the number look stable to everyone while the software was (as they clearly
said everywhere!) a pre-release. People used it, distros shipped it, it was
buggy and incomplete and everybody was confused and angry as a consequence.
Was it simply lack of historic knowledge that led to the GTK-4.0 decision?

Besides, there's no gain in specifying some arbitrary minor version to be
suddenly stable (as it was said GTK 4, “somewhere around 4.6” would
become). There's exclusively a disadvantage, i.e. that you can't rely on
common sense, convention, or any other kind of rule to know if that's a
stable version. You have to know our look it up.

Just use and you have something that follows the
principle of least surprise.


Nothing is decided yet.

There is another proposal with even/odd major versions to distinguish
between stable/unstable.


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