Kelly Martin wrote: > [snip] > If GTK stable release (1.2) is not acceptable for further development > in the GIMP (which it probably is not), I would strongly urge picking > a relatively stable snapshot of GTK+ current development (possibly, > but not necessarily HEAD today) and use that. We might have to adjust > later to any changes GTK+ makes to its HEAD after that snapshot, but > at least we won't have to adjust to them willy-nilly as they make > them. > > Kelly Sorry for jumping into this discussion in the middle, but I happen to have an opinion on this :). What about all the bugs in the chosen snapshot? I mean they get ironed out during the GTK+ development, but the Gimp developers are stuck with them during development. Lourens _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Adam D. Moss
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Hans Breuer
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Kelly Martin
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Adam D. Moss
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Nick Lamb
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Sven Neumann
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port pcg
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Kelly Martin
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port pcg
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Kelly Martin
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Lourens Veen
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Sven Neumann
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Kelly Martin
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Sven Neumann
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port pcg
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Kelly Martin
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Michael Natterer
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Malcolm Tredinnick
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Nick Lamb