Re: Qt Vs Cairo performance comparison

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>]

On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 19:25 +0000, Rob Taylor wrote:
> Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 13:02 -0500, Sean Kelley wrote:
> >> I do worry about existing indefinitely on Gtk+ 2.8 and others on Gtk+
> >> 2.6 as patches are submitted (fixed point) and changes proposed, but
> >> no action taken.  So our recourse is to maintain those patches in our
> >> Subversion repositories and pick and choose what works.
> > 
> > I share your pain.  I have a bunch of patches in Novell's package for
> > Nautilus and Gnome-VFS, that are not upstream, even though they were
> > sent for review a long time ago.  The maintainers have very good reasons
> > for not taking the patches as they are.  But *they* will not fix
> > *Novell's* problems.  *I* have to fix Novell's problems; that's why they
> > pay me.  I expect you to do the same for the problems in the embedded
> > platform space in GTK+.
> > 
> 
> I'm a little confused about what you actually mean here! Do you mean we
> should expect to have to maintain large patch sets for embedded
> platforms? I guess a gtk+-embedded branch would make some sense in that
> case as there are a number of players working in this area.
> I don't think any of the embedded people want gtk+ maintainers to do
> their work, but they do want somewhere where they can work together, and
>  it seems at this moment, mainline isn't this - which is of course
> ideally what everyone wants.

Can't speak for Gtk+ maintainer, but I don't think it's a problem to use
a Gtk+ branch for embedded work.  Did you ask?


> Thanks,
> Rob Taylor
-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/

"Commandment Three says Do Not Kill, Amendment Two says Blood Will Spill"
        -- Dan Bern, "New American Language"