Re: GNOME 2.16.2 Released!

[Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman Sun COM>]

Vincent Untz wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> Le jeudi 23 novembre 2006, à 10:24, Bill Haneman a écrit :
>   
> > Vincent Untz wrote On 11/23/06 00:38,:
> >
> >     
> > > Le jeudi 23 novembre 2006, à 01:30, Vincent Untz a écrit :
> > > + a11y is totally broken with at-spi 1.7.13. I should probably say: the
> > >  desktop is broken when a11y is turned on. I don't have the error
> > >  anymore (I should have kept the .xsession-errors around, sorry), but
> > >  downgrading to 1.7.12 works fine, so I released with this at-spi
> > >  version. Since the only change is about registryd, it shouldn't be
> > >  too hard to find it.
> > >
> > >
> > >       
> > Possibly 2.16.2 was released with a version of gnome-session that 
> > doesn't include the corresponding changes to the way at-spi-registryd is 
> > launched.  If so, that would explain the problem (there's a bug reported 
> > that atk-bridge does not fail gracefully if the registry was not 
> > launched by the session as expected).   Fix would be to either 
> > retroactively branch at-spi for gnome-2.17 or to backport the 
> > gnome-session patch to the 2.16 branch (assuming that the session patch 
> > didn't get applied to both branches when previously committed).
> >     
>
> The gnome-session change was only committed to 2.17 since it's quite an
> important change and it's not reasonable to make this change during a
> stable cycle (IMHO).
>   
Thanks Vincent, and sorry guys about this.  I didn't really think to 
myself "I had better branch at-spi for 2.17 now" since there were no 
explicit API or string changes etc. and it only crashes and burns, I 
think, because the scenario is exposing some other bug (i.e. doesn't 
fail gracefully in this case, whereas it should).

I agree that it's probably not appropriate to the stable branch.  So 
Vincent, you did exactly the right thing by reverting to at-spi-1.7.12 
for gnome 2.16.

Will try to fix both when I'm back in the Dublin office, I am in Beijing 
ATM.

Best regards,

Bill
> I guess a retroactive branch for at-spi would be my preferred option :-)
> It's not urgent for now.
>
> Thanks for the quick reply!
>
> Vincent
>
>