--- On Wed, 3/24/10, David Nečas <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: David Nečas <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: GTK+ 2.20.0 is now available for download... > To: "Sergei Steshenko" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 5:03 AM > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 04:57:13AM > -0700, Sergei Steshenko wrote: > > > > > > --- On Wed, 3/24/10, Tor Lillqvist <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > From: Tor Lillqvist <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: GTK+ 2.20.0 is now available for > download... > > > To: "IMS" <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 3:04 AM > > > > Is it usual to release a stable > > > version (here Gtk 2.20.0) based on > > > > development librairies like Glib ??? > > > > > > If you don't like it, feel free to wait then for > GLib > > > 2.24. > > > > > Nonsense. > > > > In the 'gnome' world _stable_are the ones which have > even minor version > > and as _stable_ they should depend on _stable_ > libraries which also have > > even minor version. > > > > A stable release depending on unstable libraries by > definition is not > > stable. > > As was explained, you can always ignore the fact that some > 2.23 GLib. > version is sufficient and pretend that it depends on 2.24 > and you get > your definitions of stable. In reality, nothing > changes. > > What part of that you did not understand? > > Yeti > > Which part of the non-existent gtk+ release process and non-existent respect for self-established 'gnome' conventions you did not understand ? Regards, Sergei. _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
