Michael Natterer wrote: > And BTW, GIMP 1.4 will be released _after_ Gtk 2.0 is released in a > stable version (which will be in not too distant future). I assumed nothing less. > IMHO the pro's outweigh the con's by far, as it's simply not > possible without grand hacks to write an internal object model > and a nice generic GUI with Gtk 1.2. We had an adequately generic GUI and most users couldn't give a whit about the internal object model, but I can see an attraction to hackers. > > >* For those of us with pieces of the tree's core which diverge > > >somewhat from the trunk, how much of a no-brainer is converting our > > >code to GTK 1.3-isms? > > The changes made for 2.0 migration are much less of a structural change > than what happens in two weeks of usual HEAD-reorganizing. Not a single > file was moved and almost only the object stuff was touched. It was an honest and straightforward question, not a rhetorical one; what is involved? Are the changes largely syntactic, or deeper? > What's a "no-brainer" BTW ? Something that does not require brain. =) > After all, isn't is just natural for GIMP HEAD to use the GIMP Toolkit's > bleeding edge version? This is unstable development. No, I *really* don't see the logic there at all. That's bleeding for bleeding's sake. GTK took a life of its own millenia ago and their destinies are no longer entwined. But the deed is done. :)
