Re: GTK+ 2.10.7 released

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 18:31 -0600, Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
> Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, 2007-01-06 at 00:24 -0800, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>[really impressive list of bugs deleted].
> >>
> >>As an end gtk+ user I just want to know which of the two
> >>gtk+2.8.20 <-> 2.10.7 is less buggy.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Indeed 2.10.7.  The impressive list of bugs you saw has only been fixed
> >in 2.10.7.  Another set fixed in 2.10.6.  Same for 2.10.5, ...  None of
> >them fixed in 2.8.x.
> >  
> >
> There is a natural question, how many of those bugs didn't even
> exist in 2.8.x?

If you want to do that research, then well, you have the list of bug
numbers. But note that what you ask above "how many of these bugs didn't
even exist in 2.8.x" isn't really interesting. The interesting question
is *how many of these bugs represent regressions from 2.8.x*. A bug in
new functionality doesn't affect any program that would also run with
2.8.x.

> >This idea of thinking about newer series as buggier versions is
> >fundamentally bogus.  The way you should be thinking about 2.10 is 2.8
> >plus some new functionality plus lots of bug fixes.  It typically is the
> >case that if you don't use the new functionality, it's just added value,
> >not many bugs introduced, etc.
> >
> Right, you *should* think that way, or GTK *should* be that way
> but it's not quite so. Take infamous GtkFileChooser thing - more
> bugs, less usable.

The old file selector (GtkFileSelector) was not buggier in GTK+-2.4
after GtkFileChooser was introduced. In fact, I'm pretty sure I fixed a
number of GtkFileSelector bugs in the GTK+-2.4 development cycle.

> I am not claiming that Gtk-2.10 is worse than Gtk-2.8, my opinion
> about it is very subjective, I didn't count bugs or something; some
> things are certainly better in 2.10 (e.g. printing is sort of there).
> But Sergei's question is completely reasonable. You know about
> that debian thing, that folks do not (or did not) want to use Gtk-2.10
> because it's buggy, don't you? 

I have no clue what you are talking about. (Though maybe people who are
actually active GTK+ developers currently do.) But the fact that some
people hit some bug with some GTK+-2.10 release that affected what they
were doing has basically zero bearing onto comparing the current state
of the (unmaintained) GTK+-2.8.x branch and the (maintained) GTK+-2.10.x
branch.

> It's not just like someone says "You
> guys suck, 2.10 is broken and is no better than 2.8". There are things
> that make some people believe something is wrong with Gtk-2.10, and
> you can't simply say those things are bogus because version number
> is bigger.
> 
> I understand that Sergei's question didn't make any sense on
> any gtk list, because it's taken as "You suck" (and maybe it's really
> what he meant too). But then it should be simply ignored, answers
> like "No, 2.10 is better because it must be better" do no good and
> only may add to one's belief that GTK developers ignore problems
> or do not admit problems do exist (no, I am not thinking this way).

Reread Sergei's original question ... I don't know if there was a hidden
agenda to it, but it looks simple enough, and I think Behdad's answer
was polite and pretty much spot on. If I was answering I'd probably have
been even more terse and said:

 - GTK+-2.10 is a stable branch
 - GTK+-2.10 is the only currently maintained stable branch
 - The GTK+ developers have no reason to think it's buggier or more
   memory leak prone than 2.8.x

					- Owen