Re: How About a PyGtk Stable Release?

[John Stowers <john stowers lists gmail com>]

On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:32 +1200, John Stowers wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:57 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 15:30, John Stowers <john stowers lists gmail com> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > It would be great if we could do a PyGtk stable release to align with
> > > the last gtk-2.0 release. I am happy to do this if no-one else wants to.
> > 
> > I guess you should go for it.
> 
> OK great. It would be appreciated if someone could review this branch
> 
> http://github.com/nzjrs/pygtk/compare/master...add-gtk-2.20-api
> 
> It is the API additions for Gtk-2.20. It should be uncontroversial.
> 
> I will push this in the next few days if no-one objects.

This has now been pushed.

> 
> > 
> > > Also, would it be worth numbering this release as pygtk-2.22? It would
> > > be nice if the version numbers matched again. Although this might not be
> > > worth the effort if the pygobject version number != the glib version
> > > number.
> > 
> > I'm open to changing pygobject's versioning scheme if it helps.
> 
> OK cool. I will wait to see if anyone else voices an opinion first.

I think it would be good if the version numbers were aligned again - it
would certainly then be clear that PyGtk 2.22 was to be used with Gtk
+-2.22, i.e. the last releases in the 2.X series.

In making this change would it also be a good opportunity to make the
PyGObject version number match. 

The developer story for the next 12 months of python+gtk development is
already hard to explain, small improvements like version number
alignment could go some way to improving that.

John

> 
> John
> 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Tomeu
> > 
> > > John
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > python-hackers-list mailing list
> > > python-hackers-list gnome org
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/python-hackers-list
> > >
> 
>