Michael Natterer wrote:
> And BTW, GIMP 1.4 will be released _after_ Gtk 2.0 is released in a
> stable version (which will be in not too distant future).

I assumed nothing less.

> IMHO the pro's outweigh the con's by far, as it's simply not
> possible without grand hacks to write an internal object model
> and a nice generic GUI with Gtk 1.2.

We had an adequately generic GUI and most users couldn't
give a whit about the internal object model, but I can
see an attraction to hackers.

> > >* For those of us with pieces of the tree's core which diverge
> > >somewhat from the trunk, how much of a no-brainer is converting our
> > >code to GTK 1.3-isms?
> The changes made for 2.0 migration are much less of a structural change
> than what happens in two weeks of usual HEAD-reorganizing. Not a single
> file was moved and almost only the object stuff was touched.

It was an honest and straightforward question, not a
rhetorical one; what is involved?  Are the changes largely
syntactic, or deeper?

> What's a "no-brainer" BTW ?

Something that does not require brain.  =)

> After all, isn't is just natural for GIMP HEAD to use the GIMP Toolkit's
> bleeding edge version? This is unstable development.

No, I *really* don't see the logic there at all.  That's
bleeding for bleeding's sake.  GTK took a life of its own
millenia ago and their destinies are no longer entwined.

But the deed is done.  :)
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to