And finally... I had to address this: Michael Natterer wrote: > This is unstable development. This is a fairy tale that developers like to spread to keep the unwary users' expectations down. The reality is that labelling the trunk an 'unstable' tree is not a license to actively go about doing work /in-situ/ on the trunk which is known to most definitely have a destabilising effect. That's what CVS branches are for. In a concurrent- development environment it is simply not quite polite to work out very core issues on the trunk where every other developer (or brave user) is held hostage, patches crossed behind their backs, while things get banged into shape. I'm not specifically pointing at the GTK 2.0 changes as an example of this, but wish to warn against 'unstable'-labelled versions being a self-fulfilling prophesy when they turn into a chaotic free-for-all which developers hope will all come out in the wash in a real hurry near the end of the 'unstable' cycle. --Adam
