On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:18:32 +0200, Lourens Veen <jsr@xxxxxx> said: >I may be misunderstanding, I'm not a project expert, but if the Gtk >API is frozen, the only difference between the CVS HEAD branch and >the latest developer release is bugfixes right? So then there should >be actually less bugs in the CVS HEAD. The only risk you are running >is of it not being compilable, well, as we saw today, that might >happen with a release as well ;). "99 bugs in the code, in the code. 99 bugs in the code. Fix one bug, compile again. 100 bugs in the code, in the code." Bugs get introduced during debugging quite frequently. Sometimes they things get worse before they get better. >In the end it's a matter of trusting the Gtk developers, or rather >the CVS maintainers. Do we trust them not to break things too often, >and if the compile is broken, fix it quickly. It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of recognizing that the development branch is under development and may break at any time. Rather than trusting the GTK developers not to break the head branch of their development code, we should simply abstain from demanding that promise from them in the first place. I don't want them going "Well, we can fix this bug the right way or the wrong way, but the right way will probably break something those GIMP people are doing and the wrong way won't. And we promised not to break their stuff." I want them to be able to do the right thing and not have to worry about whether that inconveniences us for a few hours, days, or weeks. Kelly
