On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> GTK2 will (*must*, actually) be ready for the next release, especially
> if someone helps me out a little bit. You all know (or can read back
> through the archives) what main sticking points are left.
Hi Dom,
I'll help out once the GTK2 branch is merged back into HEAD.
> A GNOME2 port,
> well, I'll need to find more free time I suppose, esp. since I'm not
> very interested in doing this work.
>
I'll help out here too. I'm particularly interested in supporting embedded
bonobo objects. I want to do this for many reasons and in particular to
allow equation support via GtkMathView. Math support is our number 3 most
requested feature. (and I REALLY want it too :-)
Cheers
Martin
> Cuenca - merge in your Xft stuff with HEAD and commit. I or Hub will
> merge the GTK2 work with HEAD shortly afterwords.
>
> Dom
>
> On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 05:22, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> > I wonder in light of Joaquin's work (see my posting to the "more Xft
> > stuff" thread), and would like feedback from the whole team, whether
> > we might not need to have two development branches; one a
> > continuation of the 1.x line; this would contain Martin's table code,
> > Joaquin's xft code, footnotes and endnotes code and similar, and
> > lead toward and intermediate 1.2 release. The second developement
> > branch would lead to 2.0 release eventually, and would contain the
> > Pango/gtk2 stuff.
> >
> > My main reason for this suggestion is that it will take a while before
> > we have a 2.0 release with the Pango stuff; things are moving along
> > slower than I have been hoping. However, much work has been
> > done already that could eventually be released in an intermediate
> > release, and it would be pitty to hold it back for many months just
> > because other changes are not yet finished. So, I think the best way
> > would be to brach present head into 1.x and 2.x development
> > branches. The present stable would be left as is at present for
> > bugfixes only, and after the 1.2 release would be replaced with
> > stable 1.2 branch. The 2.x-dev would be Pango-enabled and gtk2
> > dependant, so we could remove the #ifdef WITH_PANGO defines as
> > soon as the Pango code provides basic functionality, while 1.x-dev
> > would be Pango-less, gtk1 based, so that all the existing Pango code
> > would be removed from it.
> >
> > If we agreed this was a good idea, the question remains which
> > should be the head (I would prefer the Pango/gtk2 branch, as it
> > would be heading toward the next major release), and what
> > procedure would be used to for maintaining the non-head dev
> > branch. The easiest would probably be that each developer would be
> > responsible to commit all changes to both branches when
> > applicable, although, we might want to have a formal maintainer, who
> > would be sent patches.
> >
> > I am eager to hear you thoughts guys.
> >
> > Tomas
> --
> Dom Lachowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
