[Gtk-sharp-list] RE: GNOME Platform Bindings - first schedule
Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:21:18 +0100
> On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 07:18, Murray.Cumming@Comneon.com wrote:
> > > This move will force all Gtk# CVS users to build the entire
> > > GNOME platform from source.
> > Yes, just as all Nautilus hackers need to build the entire platform
> > from source.
> I don't think that's a fair comparison at all. The key being
> "users" vs. "hackers". The users of Gtk# want to develop
> with something that Just Works. Nautilus hackers are
> interested in improving the Nautilus app with the 2.6
> features. Destablizing the binding doesn't seem like a good
> idea for end developers.
I don't think that "users" should be using applications that depend on
unstable APIs. If they are happy to rely on unstable Gtk# APIs then I think
they should be happy to depend on unstable Gtk+ APIs.
If the Gtk# developers do not want to be in sync then they can choose not to
be in sync, but then they would not be on the GNOME Platform Bindings
Maybe I should not require _Beta_ Bindings to wrap some new API. For
instance, maybe it's OK that Gtk# does not wrap any new API from GTK+ 2.4,
though it will look strange to people. But Beta bindings are meant to be
aiming to be fully on the release schedule for the next release, so Gtk#
would have to get properly in-sync for GNOME 2.7/2.8, at the start.
However, I will need regular releases, and I will need Gtk# to follow the
and the other rules:
(apart from the version numbers)
I will do this because I want to encourage bindings to be on the next
schedule, and to reward bindings for their work, but if Gtk# makes no effort
to follow the rules and schedule then there is no reason why it should be
marked as a "Beta Binding" any more than the 30 other unfinished language
Mike, could you please upload Gtk# releases to ftp.gnome.org?
You will need a shell account if you do not already have one:
> I don't think that it's not that he doesn't have the time,
> but you're trying to impose this schedule on something which
> has been pretty free-form to date.
Yes. That's the point. Not all bindings are ready for that, but they should
work towards that.