RE: No GTK+ 2.6 in GNOME 2.8

["Ross McFarland" <rwmcfa1 neces com>]

Murray Cumming said:
> On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 07:29 -0400, Jeffrey Morgan wrote:
>> The java team had hoped to enhance our gdk layer by adding
>> many of the missing methods.  Will you be oposed to these
>> additions?
>
> OK, so I think the best thing to do for this is to just add "unstable"
> to your tarball names. something-2.4.5unstable.tar.gz looks a bit
> strange but at least nobody can claim that it is stable.
>
> When making unstable releases with 2.4 names, please do make it
> absolutely clear that they contain API that could change and that distro
> packagers should not update their stable packages with them.
>
> You might want to start at some high number such as 2.4.10unstable. That
> would give you room to do maintenance releases of your stable branches,
> with numbers like 2.4.2.
>
> Or, does anyone have a better suggestion yet?

<beatting of dead horse>
as i've said before (i/we think) the idea of synced version numbers are more
problems than they are worth. with gtk2-perl we get to do all of our unstable
work under 1.05x (1.04x is the stable series.) people don't seem to have a
problem figuring out that they need to get the higest version number.
</beatting of dead horse>

i guess this won't work as well for the groups who are doing seperate bindings
versions for seperate releases of glib/gtk+/etc, but that's a whole nother
dead horse that i won't bother beatting at the moment. :)

just my opinions nothing more nothing less.
-rm