Kelly Martin (kmartin@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> 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?
>
> No, because the HEAD branch could contain preliminary attempts at
> bugfixes that don't actually fix the bug or which introduce new bugs.
> I expect things like that to appear (and subsequently disappear) from
> time to time on the development head. In my experience, a bugfix will
> appear on the head branch once the developer who found the bugfix has
> verified that the code compiles with the fix and appears to fix the
> bug, but before the bugfix has been thoroughly tested by other
> developers.
Ok, I think we had a lot of arguments now. Could we try to agree on the
following:
1) Currently Gimp CVS depends on Gtk+ CVS, because the improvements
made in Gtk+ CVS (over 1.3.6) are very important for the lead
developers.
2) When the first release of GTK+ with the fixed api appears
(aka 1.3.7) Gimp CVS will depend on the earliest possible
GTK+-Tarball.
3) When a bug in all GTK+-tarballs *massively* disturbs the GIMP
developers and this bug is fixed in CVS we could make an exception
to rule No. 2. However, this should be discussed on the Mailinglist.
Personally I think it would have been nice, when the port to the new
api had been happened after the release of GTK+ 1.3.7. However, I don't
think, reverting the port now is necessary.
Maybe we could ask the GTK+-Team for the 1.3.7 - release? I am a little
bit astonished that this has not yet happened.
And please stop getting personal.
Bye,
Simon
--
Simon.Budig@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
