On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Peter Robinson <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Bernie Innocenti <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 09:27 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote: > >> AIUI, from discussions with Simon and Tomeu that's not the case. Gnome > >> people are not that insane, the old APIs will still work and be > >> supported. > >> > >> They won't be the latest coolest API wiz-bang so support may be > >> weaker, and/or we may get "ah, well, the bug you mention is fixed in > >> the introspection API, migrate to that" instead of a fix to the > >> problem you report. > >> > >> Personally, I don't mind *not* being in the bleeding edge for one cycle > :-) > > > > I agree with you. There's no hurry to switch to GNOME 3 and there are > > higher priority tasks at this time. > > So are we saying that we don't want sugar on a stick for the F-15 > release cycle and are happy to have it dropped from the Fedora Spins > and someone else is prepared do the work to get it back to that > status? Or do people generally not care about SoaS? > I don't think that is what people are saying. I think they are saying that we need not resolve all of our potential GNOME 3.0 issues immediately as the 2.0 libraries will still be present. Is that not the case? -walter > Peter > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
