RE: gtk2-perl

[muppet <scott asofyet org>]

thanks for the in-depth reply...  but it raises more questions.  :-)

On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 07:32, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> > From: muppet [mailto:scott asofyet org] 
> > what do you consider "complete" versus "almost complete"?  i consider 
> > 2.0 to be "complete",
> 
> Of course it's very vague. It's just a way to show which bindings are more
> actively worked on and used and sensibly maintained. [...]

by what you described, i would then say that we are "almost complete"
for 2.0 and 2.2, and ask you to mark the webpage accordingly.


> Well, a large part of being "complete" is freezing your API (and ABI if that
> is relevant to your language), I think, so you need to persuade me that you
> have done that and that you understand what it means. I don't think an API
> should freeze until lots of people have had a chance to use it and tell you
> that it needs to change - so I'd expect to see lots of releases before
> someone suddenly said their binding was "complete" or "frozen".

we're currently in the 0.9x beta series for 1.00.  we're following perl
module versioning of x.yy, but we've been using even numbers for
"public" releases and odd for cvs, until the beta series; sourceforge's
anon cvs was several days behind for a month or two, so we started
releasing the beta series every week to get testers.

the plan is to hit 1.00 in the next couple of weeks, and freeze the API
from that point; unfortunately, i imagine the number of people using the
bindings will balloon after 1.00, at which point we'll find the bugs we
couldn't find before for lack of testers... this means there will
doubtless be a 1.20.

any good advice on how to manage this sort of thing?


> I'd probably also look for an active mailing list also before marking
> something as "complete", because that would show that these issues have
> probably been discussed.

gtk-perl-list has nearly doubled monthly traffic for the last two months
(this month's archive is already the size of last month's and still
growing), and we're ten times the traffic of this time last year.  well,
i'm going by zipped archive size, so that's not *really* traffic, but it
does mean more is being said about it.  (granted, quite a lot of it is
my own verbosity.)

http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gtk-perl-list/index.html


> >  is there a criterion by which we should be going?  is 
> > there a currently-maintained gtk.defs file that could've saved us two 
> > months of development?
> 
> Both the pygtk and gtkmm .defs files are maintained. However, nobody has
> done much work for GTK+ 2.4 yet, I think.

from what i can tell by changelogs, the defs files used to be generated
by gtk+ itself, until sometime before 2.0.  what happened?  wouldn't it
make more sense for gtk+ to maintain the defs for consistency,
especially now that the format is standardized?