On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 08:43, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 20:32, Jody Goldberg wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:21:04PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 16:45, Owen Taylor wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 15:48, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > > > > > Some functions in GtkFileChooser don't report errors back to the caller: > > > > > > > > We are hard API/ABI frozen at this point, but this is by policy, not > > > > by necessity, so if we need to make an exception we can make an > > > > exception, with the downsides: > > > > > > There is no question in my mind that this change would delay the GNOME > > > 2.6.0 release date. > > > > > > Its down to you guys to make the call, but I would urge you to just > > > suck it up and stick with the freeze. > > > > I'll disagree here. I'd rather slip the gnome release and get this > > api correct than live with the mess until gtk-3.0 in the star trek > > future. > > The GTK+ team has set the date of March the 8th for 2.4.0 for the sole > purpose of not delaying the GNOME 2.6.0 release. What I'm trying to > point out is that if the API changes at this point it will delay the > GNOME release even if the GTK+ release meets its target date. > > At the very least, we need a decision on this. It's really sucky, and it's our fault for tying GNOME to GTK. But I think we should get the API right; assuming we're not planning on jumping to GTK/GNOME 3 any time soon, people are going to be using this API in the wild for quite a while and we don't want it to be the only part of GTK that sucks. -- Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part