[Gtk-sharp-list] RE: GNOME Platform Bindings - first schedule date

[Murray.Cumming@Comneon.com]

> I won't be able to release anything targeting the 2.5 
> platform on the 22nd.

How about 2 weeks after the 22nd? I am allowing 2 weeks lateness, but I hope
that nobody risks using that.

>  CVS is still targeting the 2.2 
> tarballs, and I want to push out another release against 2.2 
> with all the recent advancements before moving the target to 2.5.
> 
> This move will force all Gtk# CVS users to build the entire 
> GNOME platform from source.

Yes, just as all Nautilus hackers need to build the entire platform from
source.

> (Part of me thinks it's a bad 
> idea to have Gtk# CVS follow the C API this closely to the 
> bleeding edge,

You can't be in-sync without being in-sync. Are you suggesting that you
don't want to develop Gtk# for GNOME 2.6 until GNOME 2.6 is stable, or even
until it is in binary form in many distros?

> but I know the current situation is aggravated 
> by the lack of a "stable" release of
> Gtk#.)  In the short term this is going to be a huge PITA for 
> Gtk# application developers, and I don't plan to maintain 
> parallel 2.2 and 2.5 branches.
> 
> So, I hope to freeze a final 2.2 platform release before the 
> end of the year. Hopefully this release will be usable enough 
> to hold over the app developers until they can switch to 2.6. 
> 
> Then I'll cut over to the 2.5 platform in CVS trunk and 
> release another version which will roughly correspond to the 
> 12/22 release on the platform bindings schedule.  Once I've 
> done that, it should be possible to release in sync with the 
> schedule.

Please consider the 2 weeks thing, and tell me exactly when you expect to be
on the schedule. We can't keep you on the "Beta" list indefinitely unless we
know that you will try to follow the schedule.

If you don't have time to do releases, then I encourage you to delegate to
somebody who has time. I hope we work this out.

> So, if anybody has any issues with this plan, speak up soon. 
> I'd like to get some feedback on whether this approach is 
> feasible.  If it is, I'll try to move forward on it after Xmas. 

Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
murrayc@usa.net