[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) writes: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:54:10PM +0100, Andreas Rottmann was heard to remark: >> My question now is: what plans do the GnuCash developers have >> regarding the Guile bindings? I think it the there are two > > I can't comment on most of your email, because I almost certainly > won't be doing the port myself; > Just to get an idea, so I can take that into account in my development plans: what is the expected timeframe (only very roughly) when the Gnome2 version will be released to "the general public"?
> however, two small comments: > > -- please increment the version number correctly when making > incompatible changes. g-wrap 1.3.4 is fundametnally > incompatible with 1.3.1 but one would never have guessed by > looking at the version number. This made debugging a lot > harder than it should have been. > Rob is working (are you, Rob? *hinthint* ;-)) currently on releasing 1.4, which will mostly be 1.3.4 + minor changes. G-Wrap will then follow the Linux version number scheme, i.e. 1.5 will become the unstable series, until "stabled" as 1.6. I don't have currently a real plan for what will come in 1.6; most probably 1.6 will be mostly source-compatible to 1.4, but excluding the GLib bindings and having a few new features. 1.8 (or 2.0, since that is a really major change) will base upon my TNG work; at least this is my rough development plan. > -- I'm concerned about making gnucash depend on *two* packages > instead of one, which is what it sounds like you are describing. > The concern is that Guile-GObject might be poorly maintained > or might go out with wacky version numbers and bugs, leaving > us once again scratching our heads as to why a minor upgrade > broke something somewhere for thousands of users. > I did expect this ;). However, Guile-GObject will most probably join the Gnome Platform Bindings[0] for GNOME 2.8, and then we'll have strict requirements[1] on both release schedule and API stability. > One of the saddest, most annoying aspects of having used > scheme/guile in general is how minor version changes in these > packages managed to induce breakage in gnucash. > I can imagine that. Guile itself really sucks a bit in this respect, IMHO. However, I am aware that GnuCash is a big package and has lots of users, and will keep that in the back of my head in my involvement in G-Wrap and Guile-GObject. [0] http://www.gnome.org/start/2.5/bindings/ [1] http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/bindings/rules.html Andy -- Andreas Rottmann | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62 Make free software, not war! _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
