On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Walter Bender <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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?
I believe pygtk will be against gtk3 with a lot of the old stuff such as the bits for evince stripped as the bindings will be provided by gobject introspection. As I mentioned previously that's something that others will need to outline. Peter _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
