Re: API freeze for GNOME 2
- From: Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>
- To: Mark McLoughlin <mark skynet ie>
- Cc: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>, murrayc usa net, gnome-2-0-list <gnome-2-0-list gnome org>, Gnome Hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>, gnome-devel <gnome-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: API freeze for GNOME 2
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:32:55 +0000 (GMT)
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi Owen,
>
> On 14 Nov 2001, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> > By 2.2, I meant "post-2.0 release with API additions and binary
> > compatibility".
> >
> > I don't know of any post-2.0 version number plans in for GNOME
> > at this point. For GTK+, what I want to do is:
> >
> > 2.0
> > 2.0.x Bug fixes
> > 2.2 Source/binary compatible release with multihead support, other
> > API additions
> > 2.4? Another source/binary compatible release
> > 2.6?
> > 3.0: Source/binary incompatible release in the hazy future
> >
> > Haven't completely gotten Tim to agree with me yet on this versioning
> > scheme, but we are going to be restricting ourselves to source/binary
> > compatible additions for the mid-term future in any case.
>
> That's great - really :-) At least this has been thought out
> for gtk+.
>
> No, how about the rest of gnome? Is there a possibility that
> this could be agreed on as a general, hazy plan for the gnome desktop
> as a whole?
>
Whats the worth if all everybody is going to do with that is piss on it?
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
Sander
"I don't think there is intelligent life within our solar system"
-- Brian Behlendorf
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]