RE: GNOME Platform Bindings - first schedule date

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

> > 1. It would be nice if you used GTK+ 2.3- and GNOME 2.5-like version
> > numbers: 
> > 
> http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/bindings> /rules.html#VersionNumbers
> 
> as discussed before, we can't use 3-part version numbers for 
> a variety 
> of reasons, all perl-related.

OK. Do you have any way to indicate API stability/addition with version
numbers? Can you tell me
- what version numbers you will use for your GNOME Platform Bindins 2.6.0
releases, for your libgnomeui binding, for instance?
- what version numbers you will use for your GNOME Platform Bindins 2.7.x
and 2.8.0 releases, for your libgnomeui  binding, for instance?
 
> on another note, i don't actually think synchronized numbering is a 
> good idea.

Yes, it's awkward, but I think the advantage here outweighs the
disadvantages, when it can be done.  It works quite successfully for GNOME
modules themselves, which are mostly all called 2.5.x, for GNOME 2.5, for
intance. When they need to do an extra release between GNOME releases, they
usually use an extra version number. So, you see versions such as 2.5.1 and
then 2.5.1.1 and then 2.5.2.

> > 2. Please do not upload the perl binding modules to 
ftp.gnome.org. The 
> > filenames would create too much confusion.
>
> for completeness -- it is possible to rename the tarballs, but it would 
> only cause confusion, for someone attempting to patch and re-build the 
> package would wind up creating a new package with a different name.

That's OK. I will just continue to upload copies to the release directory
and keep them separate.

Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
murrayc usa net