Le mar, 27/04/2004 à 09:17 +0200, Miguel Rodríguez a écrit : > I don't want to impose anything on anybody. I just feel that developers > should be able to use gnome26 features in the cvs version if the next > stable version will depend on it. > > If a user finds it difficult to use the cvs version, then he/she should > use the stable version. On the other hand, if he/she feels brave enough > to cope with the inherent difficulties in using development code, they > are more than welcome to test, report bugs, send patches and so on. > > Just wanted to clarify my position. OK, then I will clarify mine. I perfectly agree with you. We are a GNOME 2.6 application and must make an extensive use of GNOME 2.6 features. However, the requirement you impose to CVS packagers is a bit excessive because : - it only fixes a bug that few people will encounter - removing that requirement doesn't remove the feature you added - and even if it was removing that feature, it wouldn't be a big loss in functionnality I agree that we have to push things in the GNOME direction, but do not impose to our poor CVS packagers to upgrade half of their desktop just to fix a bug. We have the same problem with GTK+ 2.4. I would love to port GM to pure GTK+ 2.4. But if we do this, we have to keep an implementation with GTK+ 2.2 because GTK+ 2.4 is not ready for windows. So I don't do it. But if there was no windows port in sight, I would do it directly, because it would be a major step forward. Your bugfix is required for 1.2, but it is not a major step forward. I'm not even sure GNOME 2.6 packs are already available for all major dists. Damien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=