--- On Wed, 3/24/10, David Nečas <yeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: David Nečas <yeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: GTK+ 2.20.0 is now available for download...
> To: "Sergei Steshenko" <sergstesh@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 5:03 AM
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:57:13AM
> -0700, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 3/24/10, Tor Lillqvist <tml@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Tor Lillqvist <tml@xxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: GTK+ 2.20.0 is now available for
> download...
> > > To: "IMS" <ims77.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 3:04 AM
> > > > Is it usual to release a stable
> > > version (here Gtk 2.20.0) based on
> > > > development librairies like Glib ???
> > >
> > > If you don't like it, feel free to wait then for
> GLib
> > > 2.24.
> > >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > In the 'gnome' world _stable_are the ones which have
> even minor version
> > and as _stable_ they should depend on _stable_
> libraries which also have
> > even minor version.
> >
> > A stable release depending on unstable libraries by
> definition is not
> > stable.
>
> As was explained, you can always ignore the fact that some
> 2.23 GLib.
> version is sufficient and pretend that it depends on 2.24
> and you get
> your definitions of stable. In reality, nothing
> changes.
>
> What part of that you did not understand?
>
> Yeti
>
>
Which part of the non-existent gtk+ release process and non-existent
respect for self-established 'gnome' conventions you did not understand ?
Regards,
Sergei.
_______________________________________________
gtk-list mailing list
gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
