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

Murray.Cumming@Comneon.com Murray.Cumming@Comneon.com
Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:21:18 +0100

> On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 07:18, Murray.Cumming@Comneon.com wrote:
> > > 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.
> I don't think that's a fair comparison at all.  The key being 
> "users" vs. "hackers".  The users of Gtk# want to develop 
> with something that Just Works.  Nautilus hackers are 
> interested in improving the Nautilus app with the 2.6 
> features.  Destablizing the binding doesn't seem like a good 
> idea for end developers.

I don't think that "users" should be using applications that depend on
unstable APIs. If they are happy to rely on unstable Gtk# APIs then I think
they should be happy to depend on unstable Gtk+ APIs.

If the Gtk# developers do not want to be in sync then they can choose not to
be in sync, but then they would not be on the GNOME Platform Bindings
release schedule.

Maybe I should not require _Beta_ Bindings to wrap some new API. For
instance, maybe it's OK that Gtk# does not wrap any new API from GTK+ 2.4,
though it will look strange to people. But Beta bindings are meant to be
aiming to be fully on the release schedule for the next release, so Gtk#
would have to get properly in-sync for GNOME 2.7/2.8, at the start.

However, I will need regular releases, and I will need Gtk# to follow the
freeze dates:
and the other rules:
(apart from the version numbers)

I will do this because I want to encourage bindings to be on the next
schedule, and to reward bindings for their work, but if Gtk# makes no effort
to follow the rules and schedule then there is no reason why it should be
marked as a "Beta Binding" any more than the 30 other unfinished language

Mike, could you please upload Gtk# releases to ftp.gnome.org?
You will need a shell account if you do not already have one:

> I don't think that it's not that he doesn't have the time, 
> but you're trying to impose this schedule on something which 
> has been pretty free-form to date.

Yes. That's the point. Not all bindings are ready for that, but they should
work towards that.

Murray Cumming