On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 12:29 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote: > > > Hey hey hey, let's stay calm here. GNOME necessarily works on a > > short-term-benefit model; the question we need to ask is "Is going to > > GTK+ 2.8 in less than 6 months *definitely* not going to have any > > negative implications on that version of GNOME?" And it's a fair > > question to ask, because last time we did this the answer was "Yes, it > > did." > > That particular negative impact on GNOME you're referring to is that it > delayed the GNOME release. > > Matthias's mail basically says that that isn't going to be an issue > this time and details what the GTK+ guys are doing to make sure of that. > > So, lets not get things mixed up here. Performance worries are very > different from meeting-the-schedule worries.
There were a couple of stability issues too (nothing terribly major, but it wasn't quite up to the very high standards that GTK+ releases normally set for themselves). I can't remember specifically what they were, any more. But you're right, they weren't performance issues, so I might be talking at 90 degrees to everyone else. -- Andrew _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list