On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:08 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:57, Simon van der Linden <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 10:07 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> The rationale is that it will help people a bit to know what to expect > >> from a given PyGObject release. He's already numbering his PyGtk > >> releases matching Gtk+ versions. > > > > I wonder whether it makes sense for PyGObject, which is not, to my > > knowledge, a set of static binding for GLib. We don't exactly ensure > > that all the features available in the matching GLib version is > > available to Python developers, do we? > > I think that's something we should aim for. I also consider g-i to be > a logical part of GLib even if it hasn't been merged yet.
I'm neither in favor nor against this change. I think it will not bring anything. In the long term, I think following GNOME's version number (i.e. 2.31.x for now), both for PyGObject and GLib (and G-I, thus) would make more sense. _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [email protected] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://faq.pygtk.org/
