Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
Andre Klapper schrieb: Ahoj, a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven . The schedule also includes a plan to clean up the platform by getting rid of deprecated modules. Maintainers can see the GNOME 3 readiness of their modules on Frederic's awesome status page at http://www.gnome.org/~fpeters/299.html . Comments discussion welcome. I woner what we will do with gnome-canvas? I don't think we should deprecate it without an official alternative and some migration support/guide. Stefan Notes: * 2.30.0 is planned to be 3.0.0, if the QA agrees (For a general GNOME 3 debate, please see other threads like Vincent's recent posting at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2009-April/msg4.html and http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2009-April/msg5.html ). I don't plan to cover everything+1 in this schedule, it's just that I concentrated on platform streamlining.) * Only two maintenance releases for 2.28.x * Early module freeze for 2.30 * More earlier 2.29.x releases than normally (better testing) * Two weeks hardcode freeze before 2.30.0 - late release at the last day of march 2010 * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on Bonobo) - robtaylor and/or desrt will probably elaborate its current state. * Still to discuss: a11y plan for GNOME3 - see http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/BonoboDeprecation Already know some 2.28 plans for the module you maintain? Add them to http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap now! andre ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
Le lundi 06 avril 2009 à 17:10 +0300, Stefan Kost a écrit : Andre Klapper schrieb: Ahoj, a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven . The schedule also includes a plan to clean up the platform by getting rid of deprecated modules. Maintainers can see the GNOME 3 readiness of their modules on Frederic's awesome status page at http://www.gnome.org/~fpeters/299.html . Comments discussion welcome. I woner what we will do with gnome-canvas? I don't think we should deprecate it without an official alternative and some migration support/guide. If nothing uses it anymore in the official gnome modules (btw, did something used it?), deprecate it. It is almost unmaintained, AFAIK. Of course, there is no official alternatives, but I don't think there will be one in a foreseeable future. Just defining what it should do will be quite difficult since there seems to be so many divergent opinions among the community. And even if somebody is able to write a multipurpose canvas, it might not fulfill everybody's needs. For my use case, I tested libccc and goocanvas, and in the end it took me less time to write a new widget from scratch with all the features I need and just these. Best regards, Jean Stefan Notes: * 2.30.0 is planned to be 3.0.0, if the QA agrees (For a general GNOME 3 debate, please see other threads like Vincent's recent posting at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2009-April/msg4.html and http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2009-April/msg5.html ). I don't plan to cover everything+1 in this schedule, it's just that I concentrated on platform streamlining.) * Only two maintenance releases for 2.28.x * Early module freeze for 2.30 * More earlier 2.29.x releases than normally (better testing) * Two weeks hardcode freeze before 2.30.0 - late release at the last day of march 2010 * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on Bonobo) - robtaylor and/or desrt will probably elaborate its current state. * Still to discuss: a11y plan for GNOME3 - see http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/BonoboDeprecation Already know some 2.28 plans for the module you maintain? Add them to http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap now! andre ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
Le jeudi 02 avril 2009, à 11:26 -0400, Willie Walker a écrit : 2) We are working with another organization right now to investigate magnification solutions. This may involve picking up on http://projects.gnome.org/outreach/a11y/tasks/magnification/, and I suspect the ultimate solution will be a combination of improvements to Compiz's eZoom plugin plus a D-Bus API. If so, this may end up as a Compiz project. I guess we'd probably want to have GNOME Shell people involved there, since this would be something that would need to be implemented there too... -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
Hi, On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Cosimo Cecchi cosi...@gnome.org wrote: I add another question here, as a complete dconf/GConf newbie: is depending on Bonobo/Corba vs DBus the only thing that makes GConf not useful towards GNOME 3.0 or are there some other design/preformance/whatever issues requiring a full rewrite to be solved? http://projects.gnome.org/gconf/plans.html http://projects.gnome.org/gconf/plans-spec.html (would recommend checklisting dconf against this list, I think Ryan and I did a couple years ago, but there's been a lot of change since) We learned, with the GIO transition, that porting lots of applications isn't fun, and is something which takes much time to be completed project-wide. As GConf is probably even more widely used than gnome-vfs was, porting could be an even bigger effort. The only sane thing imo would be to have a gconf compatibility wrapper around dconf. Havoc ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
Le vendredi 03 avril 2009 à 09:48 -0400, Havoc Pennington a écrit : We learned, with the GIO transition, that porting lots of applications isn't fun, and is something which takes much time to be completed project-wide. As GConf is probably even more widely used than gnome-vfs was, porting could be an even bigger effort. The only sane thing imo would be to have a gconf compatibility wrapper around dconf. AOL. The timeframe looks way too short to allow for completing dconf and porting all applications before the 3.0 release. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
2009/4/2 Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net: Ahoj, a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven . The schedule also includes a plan to clean up the platform by getting rid of deprecated modules. Maintainers can see the GNOME 3 readiness of their modules on Frederic's awesome status page at http://www.gnome.org/~fpeters/299.html . Comments discussion welcome. Notes: * 2.30.0 is planned to be 3.0.0, if the QA agrees (For a general GNOME 3 debate, please see other threads like Vincent's recent posting at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2009-April/msg4.html and http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2009-April/msg5.html ). I don't plan to cover everything+1 in this schedule, it's just that I concentrated on platform streamlining.) * Only two maintenance releases for 2.28.x * Early module freeze for 2.30 * More earlier 2.29.x releases than normally (better testing) * Two weeks hardcode freeze before 2.30.0 - late release at the last day of march 2010 * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on Bonobo) - robtaylor and/or desrt will probably elaborate its current state. * Still to discuss: a11y plan for GNOME3 - see http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/BonoboDeprecation How does the release of Gtk+ 3.0 fits with this schedule. Is this something totally independent? Already know some 2.28 plans for the module you maintain? Add them to http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap now! andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on Bonobo) There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to DBus that Imendio did for Maemo. Moblin also ships it and it shouldn't be *too* difficult to merge it back[1]. Ross [1] I may regret saying this -- Ross Burton mail: r...@burtonini.com jabber: r...@burtonini.com www: http://burtonini.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
2009/4/2 Ross Burton r...@burtonini.com: On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on Bonobo) There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to DBus that Imendio did for Maemo. Moblin also ships it and it shouldn't be *too* difficult to merge it back[1]. My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge would need a lot of work. Ross [1] I may regret saying this -- Ross Burton mail: r...@burtonini.com jabber: r...@burtonini.com www: http://burtonini.com ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge would need a lot of work. There being no GConf maintainer makes this easy for a suitably willing person to do the merge. I prefer the phrasing needs cleaning up to a huge hack myself though. :) Ross -- Ross Burton mail: r...@burtonini.com jabber: r...@burtonini.com www: http://burtonini.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
2009/4/2 Ross Burton r...@burtonini.com: On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge would need a lot of work. There being no GConf maintainer makes this easy for a suitably willing person to do the merge. I prefer the phrasing needs cleaning up to a huge hack myself though. :) Well, at this point we have someone willing to write a piece of software with loads of benefits and some code available over GConf and none volunteering on doing the merge. Unless you are volunteering yourself :-) Ross -- Ross Burton mail: r...@burtonini.com jabber: r...@burtonini.com www: http://burtonini.com -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: 2009/4/2 Ross Burton r...@burtonini.com: On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on Bonobo) There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to DBus that Imendio did for Maemo. Moblin also ships it and it shouldn't be *too* difficult to merge it back[1]. My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge would need a lot of work. Is it more or less work than finishing the replacement, and porting all the apps and developer documentation, as well as writing porting documentation? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 14:26 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: Well, at this point we have someone willing to write a piece of software with loads of benefits and some code available over GConf and none volunteering on doing the merge. Unless you are volunteering yourself :-) Actually, looking at the state of gconf vs gconf-dbus was on my todo list. But if dconf is more than vapourware then I'm all for deprecating gconf! Ross -- Ross Burton mail: r...@burtonini.com jabber: r...@burtonini.com www: http://burtonini.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 14:30 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: 2009/4/2 Ross Burton r...@burtonini.com: On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on Bonobo) There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to DBus that Imendio did for Maemo. Moblin also ships it and it shouldn't be *too* difficult to merge it back[1]. My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge would need a lot of work. Is it more or less work than finishing the replacement, and porting all the apps and developer documentation, as well as writing porting documentation? I add another question here, as a complete dconf/GConf newbie: is depending on Bonobo/Corba vs DBus the only thing that makes GConf not useful towards GNOME 3.0 or are there some other design/preformance/whatever issues requiring a full rewrite to be solved? We learned, with the GIO transition, that porting lots of applications isn't fun, and is something which takes much time to be completed project-wide. As GConf is probably even more widely used than gnome-vfs was, porting could be an even bigger effort. Ciao, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
Cosimo Cecchi wrote: On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on Bonobo) There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to DBus that Imendio did for Maemo. Moblin also ships it and it shouldn't be *too* difficult to merge it back[1]. My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge would need a lot of work. Of course, if nothing else is going to depend on Bonobo and GConf doesn't expose Bonobo in its API (which I think it doesn't) then we could just move libbonobo into the gconf source tree, as a private library, and then complete the D-Bus fixup/merge at our leisure after that. We learned, with the GIO transition, that porting lots of applications isn't fun, and is something which takes much time to be completed project-wide. As GConf is probably even more widely used than gnome-vfs was, porting could be an even bigger effort. GConf-DConf seems like it might be less work per module than gnome-vfs-gio though... -- Dan ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote: a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven . The libglade/GtkBuilder transition is on the plan to begin at the end of this month. Currently the transition documentation is pretty pitiful. Has someone volunteered to update it/flesh it out between now and then? Cheers, Adam ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
For the accessibility portion, here's some strawman stuff that will be solidified soon (I hope): 1) Luke Yelavich at Canonical is planning on looking at speech dispatcher as a proposed replacement for gnome-speech. If he gets support from his management to do the work and is successful at meeting the sundry of requirements being placed on a speech synthesis solution, we can deprecate/remove gnome-speech. Note that speech dispatcher will likely end up as a cross platform project under the Linux Foundation Open A11y community. 2) We are working with another organization right now to investigate magnification solutions. This may involve picking up on http://projects.gnome.org/outreach/a11y/tasks/magnification/, and I suspect the ultimate solution will be a combination of improvements to Compiz's eZoom plugin plus a D-Bus API. If so, this may end up as a Compiz project. 3) In two weeks, Sun is hosting a meeting between Sun, Codethink, and Novell to develop a go forward plan to get the AT-SPI/D-Bus work to a point where the existing Bonobo/CORBA solution can be supplanted. This includes figuring out what to do about applications that currently depend upon cspi. Since it is cross platform, this may also end up as a project under the Linux Foundation's Open A11y group. I'd also like to organize something at GUADEC around this since it is basically a rewrite of the entire accessibility infrastructure for GNOME. In the end, we will have also created a solution that is compatible with KDE desktops and is also more amenable to mobile devices. Keep an eye on http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/BonoboDeprecation for details. Hope this ties you over until we can solidify things more, Will On Apr 2, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Andre Klapper wrote: Ahoj, a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven . The schedule also includes a plan to clean up the platform by getting rid of deprecated modules. Maintainers can see the GNOME 3 readiness of their modules on Frederic's awesome status page at http://www.gnome.org/~fpeters/299.html . Comments discussion welcome. Notes: * 2.30.0 is planned to be 3.0.0, if the QA agrees (For a general GNOME 3 debate, please see other threads like Vincent's recent posting at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2009-April/ msg4.html and http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2009-April/ msg5.html ). I don't plan to cover everything+1 in this schedule, it's just that I concentrated on platform streamlining.) * Only two maintenance releases for 2.28.x * Early module freeze for 2.30 * More earlier 2.29.x releases than normally (better testing) * Two weeks hardcode freeze before 2.30.0 - late release at the last day of march 2010 * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on Bonobo) - robtaylor and/or desrt will probably elaborate its current state. * Still to discuss: a11y plan for GNOME3 - see http://live.gnome.org/Accessibility/BonoboDeprecation Already know some 2.28 plans for the module you maintain? Add them to http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap now! andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Adam Schreiber sa...@clemson.edu wrote: On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote: a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven . The libglade/GtkBuilder transition is on the plan to begin at the end of this month. Currently the transition documentation is pretty pitiful. Has someone volunteered to update it/flesh it out between now and then? I was refering to [1] linked from [2]. Cheers, Adam [1] http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/stable/gtk-migrating-GtkBuilder.html [2] http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/RemoveLibGladeUseGtkBuilder ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Adam Schreiber sa...@clemson.edu wrote: On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Adam Schreiber sa...@clemson.edu wrote: On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote: a draft for the GNOME 2.27 2.29 schedule is now available at http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven . The libglade/GtkBuilder transition is on the plan to begin at the end of this month. Currently the transition documentation is pretty pitiful. Has someone volunteered to update it/flesh it out between now and then? I was refering to [1] linked from [2]. It would be really helpful for this to get some feedback from people who have already done a conversion to GtkBuilder. What were the gotchas ? What are the tricks that one needs to know ? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
Hi! I add another question here, as a complete dconf/GConf newbie: is depending on Bonobo/Corba vs DBus the only thing that makes GConf not useful towards GNOME 3.0 or are there some other design/preformance/whatever issues requiring a full rewrite to be solved? Performance (especially on Desktop login, see some blog posts by Micheal Meeks). And the code base is rather old and wasn't really maintained for some time now which could make a bad base for hacking. It is also not very tied to Glib/GObject (GValue vs. GConfValue, etc.). But after Ryan's mail I guess the discussion could become obsolete. Having someone working on dconf full-time is certainly better than having noone working on gconf. Regards, Johannes signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
Am Donnerstag, den 02.04.2009, 16:56 + schrieb Stef Walter: Matthias Clasen wrote: It would be really helpful for this to get some feedback from people who have already done a conversion to GtkBuilder. What were the gotchas ? What are the tricks that one needs to know ? I've worked with GtkBuilder some in gnome-keyring. So far the big gotcha have been the lack of support in glade for saving in the builder format directly. Maybe this has been fixed by now, haven't checked. This should be fixed by http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490678 andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 3.0 Schedule draft; Streamlining of the Platform.
On 4/2/09, Stef Walter stef-l...@memberwebs.com wrote: Matthias Clasen wrote: It would be really helpful for this to get some feedback from people who have already done a conversion to GtkBuilder. What were the gotchas ? What are the tricks that one needs to know ? I've worked with GtkBuilder some in gnome-keyring. So far the big gotcha have been the lack of support in glade for saving in the builder format directly. Maybe this has been fixed by now, haven't checked. It does now, at least in a quick trip to migration land in gnome-panel[0] I was able to load the .glade files and save them in .ui (well, GtkBuilder) format. Simple, and the new Project Preferences even allowed me to select the target GTK+ version. Great work, Glade team :-) 0 - http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=474080 ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
