Re: [gtkmm] porting projects from gtkmm-1.2 to gtkmm2

[Leandro Fanzone <leandro hasar com>]

Well, in fact it wasn't even reasonable to us to reimplement CList in
gtkmm2. If TreeView was ought to be the new standard, there's no point
on lagging behind. Our complain in that moment was such an important
API breakage for a rather big project implies a lot of time, and many
people here pointed that we should move to a more stable (in terms of
API) development environment. At this point, I think it has more to do
with gtk+ than with gtkmm, of course. At any rate, we stuck with gtkmm.
And I did not complain so far in this list (or in any other) about
this, but if someone asks, of course I want to warn him/her what my
experience was. Some other people could provide a more positive log,
but the more information he/she gets, the better.

Leandro.

Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-01-13 at 20:06, Leandro Fanzone wrote:. 
> > At the time the application was finished and running, there was no
> > hint that CList would die any time soon (Karl's times).
> >   
>
> OK. I would just like to repeat what we said during the development - If
> support for deprecated widgets was important enough to anybody then they
> were welcome to do the work. For instance, you might have found it
> easier to implement Gtk::CList in gtkmm2 than to port your code. In
> fact, _nobody_ considered it important enough to work on it.
>
> Even now, anyone can start a gtkmm2_deprecated_widgets project.
>
> This is our long-standing rule: If something isn't important enough for
> people to do themselves then it probably isn't important enough for us
> to do it for them. The rest of gtkmm2 would never have been finished
> either if only I and danielk worked on it.
>
> This isn't aimed at you - I just like the opportunity to say that there
> is a plan to all this.