Re: Merging libsexy widgets

[Cody Russell <bratsche gnome org>]

On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 14:38 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > I don't think we need to discuss libsexy in a meeting, let alone a
> > hackfest.  Libsexy IIUC is a staging area for widgets, similar to
> > libegg.  If that's the case, it cannot be "merged" at once and needs
> to
> > be done for each widget/functionality separately.  That kind of
> > development is already happening and has a natural home: bugzilla
> and
> > this list.  What needs to be done is for someone to open a bug about
> > merging their favorite libsexy widget into Gtk+, prepare a patch,
> reply
> > to maintainer concerns, refine it, repeat until merged.
> 
> I think, to start with, we should see which widgets are available in
> there, which ones are obsoleted by features in GTK+ itself (such as
> tooltips for single lines in treeviews), and file bugs for those we'd
> want to merge.

I also got comments on my blog post about merging libsexy, and I
responded with about the same thing that Behdad said, which is that it
should be evaluated on a per-widget basis.

So as you suggested I'm filing bug reports for widgets that seem
merge-worthy:

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508809
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508810

Other widgets are SexySpellEntry, but that would involve new
dependencies that I think gtk+ doesn't want, SexyTooltip, and
SexyTreeView.  As you said, I think those are no longer necessary.

/ Cody