Alright, this is turning into a flamewar and that's the least productive
of all. Let me try to wrap up this discussion:
The question: Will the gimp-1.3 developer releases depend on Gtk-1.3
HEAD CVS, or do we make certain every gimp-1.3.x release compiles with
gtk-1.3.y?
Arguments for depending on HEAD:
- The Gtk-1.3 API is frozen, so using the latest won't break anything,
it will only be better code
- These releases are for developers only, normal users don't need to
have anything to do with CVS.
- Gtk will be tested well prior to release, avoiding the possible need
of major changes after release of Gtk-2.0.
Arguments against depending on HEAD, and just using the latest Gtk-1.3.y
release to work with:
- Gtk HEAD may not always compile, making it difficult for users to try
out the development releases in the gimp-1.3 branch
- If there are major advantages of CVS HEAD over the latest development
release they will probably do a new release anyway, and besides, this is
unlikely as Gtk-2.0 is late in its development cycle already.
I might have missed one or two arguments, apologies in advance if that's
the case.
I think we need to ask ourselves why users would want to try the latest
developer releases of Gimp. If they want to have the latest because of
having the latest, I don't think they'll mind getting CVS HEAD branches
and weeding out possible compile problems. But I think for gimp-1.1
there was a different reason. Gimp-1.1 had a whole lot of features that
weren't in gimp-1.0. In fact, to me (as a user) Gimp-1.1 was a good
graphics program, while Gimp-1.0 was hopelessly limited.
So my question is, will Gimp-1.3/2.0, in the early stages of
development, add much functionality? It seems to me it won't be an
advantage, as for now it's basically the functionality of gimp-1.2 with
a whole new implementation. But if there are no functional advantages
the average user will be happy to keep using 1.2 for a while (I know I
will at least). So in that case, it doesn't really matter, as long as
the developers are happy.
Once gimp-1.3 actually starts being a useable graphics package with more
features than gimp-1.2 I think we need to worry about users being able
to compile things easily, and I do believe simply depending on a fixed
Gtk-version (which will then probably be at 2.0.x anyway) is a part of
that.
As for pango and atk, if I understand correctly they are simply part of
Gtk-2.0, or at least standard companions to it. In that case why not use
them? I'm sure there are gimp-users in Israel who'd like a Hebrew
translation, and if that work is done already by the pango developers,
why not make use of it? With Gtk-2.0, people will have it anyway. The
same goes for atk.
Please, try hitting the ball and not your opponent. It's not a nice
thing to do, and given that your opponent is on your own team, pretty
stupid as well.
Lourens
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
