On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 11:30 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> If you look at www.gtk.org/plan/2.8, you'll see that our schedule calls
> for a 2.7.0 release with all major 2.8 features in by June 1, so we are
> a bit behind the schedule already. Looking at the features listed on
> that page
>
> - Ca
On Thu, June 9, 2005 9:55, Mark McLoughlin said:
> On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 11:30 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> My feeling is that we should probably drop gobject introspection, gail
>> and libglade integration from the 2.8 feature list at this point, and
>> aim for a feature-complete 2.7.0 release
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 12:22 -0400, Morten Welinder wrote:
> > - The benefit of having cool new rendering stuff in GNOME 2.12
>
> Being cool never got any work done.
>
> > - The benefit of getting all this stuff tested early (i.e. before
> > GTK+ 2.8 is released, rather than after)
>
> We are t
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 12:10 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> It has not been tested it was too soon to test. Why are people so
> afraid of gtk+ 2.7 without even trying it? It really is quite stable
> now.
I think it's because in these enlightened times, people use the GNOME
stack that
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 12:29 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 12:10 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> > It has not been tested it was too soon to test. Why are people so
> > afraid of gtk+ 2.7 without even trying it? It really is quite stable
> > now.
>
> I think it's
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 11:30 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> - GObject introspection: The current prototype in the
> gobject-instrospection module in cvs is not ready for inclusion yet.
> I feel that we would do better to not rush this in 2.8 at this point.
Agreed. Also adapting language
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 12:29 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> Hey hey hey, let's stay calm here. GNOME necessarily works on a
> short-term-benefit model; the question we need to ask is "Is going to
> GTK+ 2.8 in less than 6 months *definitely* not going to have any
> negative implications on that vers
Hi.
I tried building HEAD off jhbuild last night and today and the result of
logging in doing some small tasks in the panel and opening a terminal
etc.
I filed one bug against gdk with a cairo related leak already, and I
found another one that I have a patch for in gnome-screenshooter.
Other tha
tor, 09,.06.2005 kl. 16.08 +0200, skrev Kjartan Maraas:
> Hi.
/me slaps self
Logs are at http://www.gnome.org/~kmaraas/valgrind-logs-2005-06-09/
Cheers
Kjartan
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mai
Hey Kjartan,
there are some weird things happening with the latest gtk+.
I also experience the desktop bug you're reporting, and I think it is
related to bug #305459
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=305459
There is some problem with the handling of pixbufs.
Cheers
Vincent
On 6/9/05, Kja
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:08 +0200, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
> Other than that I had some redraw problems on the desktop. It seemed to
> draw text and icons repeatedly over the existing one without refreshing
> the desktop, the new text and icon also moved up slightly for each
> iteration so it looked
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Matthias's mail basically says that that isn't going to be an issue
> this time and details what the GTK+ guys are doing to make sure of that.
>
> So, lets not get things mixed up here. Performance worries are very
> different
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> If we're talking about performance/stability in the context of whether
> GNOME 2.12 should use GTK+ 2.8, we're effectively saying "I think the
> GTK+ team might ship a unstable or unacceptably slow 2.8.0 release;
> GNOME shouldn't co
On 6/9/05, Jon K Hellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > If we're talking about performance/stability in the context of whether
> > GNOME 2.12 should use GTK+ 2.8, we're effectively saying "I think the
> > GTK+ team might ship a unstab
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 16:10 +0200, Jon K Hellan wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> If we're talking about performance/stability in the context of whether
> GNOME 2.12 should use GTK+ 2.8, we're effectively saying "I think the
> GTK+ team might ship a unstable
On 6/9/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/9/05, Jon K Hellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > If we're talking about performance/stability in the context of
> > > whether
> > > GNOME 2.12 should use GTK+ 2.8, we're e
> I think these kind of questions are only relevant in the context of
> deciding on the *gtk* schedule. I don't think they're very relevant in the
> context of deciding whether GNOME 2.12 should use GTK+ 2.8. If we're all
> confident the schedules line up, then I don't think there's really any
>
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 12:29 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
>
> > Hey hey hey, let's stay calm here. GNOME necessarily works on a
> > short-term-benefit model; the question we need to ask is "Is going to
> > GTK+ 2.8 in less than 6 months *de
I just branched gnome-icon-theme for gnome 2.10. The branchpoint is
based off the last 2.10 release.
-- dobey
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 01:17 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > I think these kind of questions are only relevant in the context of
> > deciding on the *gtk* schedule. I don't think they're very relevant in the
> > context of deciding whether GNOME 2.12 should use GTK+ 2.8. If we're all
> > confiden
I think there seems to be a very strong consensus that ggv/gpdf should
be replaced by evince in 2.12. Does anyone object to me going ahead
and removing them from the jhbuild moduleset and adding evince?
Luis
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-de
Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think there seems to be a very strong consensus that ggv/gpdf should
> be replaced by evince in 2.12. Does anyone object to me going ahead
> and removing them from the jhbuild moduleset and adding evince?
Go for it.
-Jonathan
___
On 09 Jun 2005 13:12:31 -0400, Jonathan Blandford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think there seems to be a very strong consensus that ggv/gpdf should
> > be replaced by evince in 2.12. Does anyone object to me going ahead
> > and removing them from the
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 10:49 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> first 'column' of times is gtk 2.6, second is gtk/cairo HEAD of
> yesterday, both with the Mist theme:
>
> GtkEntry - time: 0.43 0.76
> GtkComboBox - time: 12.61 15.30
> GtkComboBoxEntry - time: 11.95 13.25
> GtkSpinButton - time: 0.65 1.09
On 6/9/05, Jon K Hellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 10:49 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > first 'column' of times is gtk 2.6, second is gtk/cairo HEAD of
> > yesterday, both with the Mist theme:
> >
> > GtkEntry - time: 0.43 0.76
> > GtkComboBox - time: 12.61 15.30
> > GtkCombo
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 15:12 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> I should have mentioned that this was with N=1000; jkh, I'm assuming
> you did the default n=100?
Correct.
If anybody is interested, here are numbers over remote display. The
network is 802.11g wireless LAN, ping time 1.3 ms. N still 100.
J
Okay I'm begging now can some one please tag the gtk+ cvs tree or at
least tell me when a smoke tested tag will be done.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> - The benefit of having cool new rendering stuff in GNOME 2.12
Being cool never got any work done.
> - The benefit of getting all this stuff tested early (i.e. before
> GTK+ 2.8 is released, rather than after)
We are talking a serious amount of new code that I have not tested,
let alone run
> No-one was implying that Cairo was a Bad Idea (tm), only whether we
> could be >99% sure of it being as stable as and as fast as the current
> stable GTK+ in a relatively short timescale.
Since Cairo is a pipelined graphics library and most of the original
graphics calls are not routed through c
Hi all,
Could all the module maintainers add themselves in the maintainer column
on the Desktop modules list [1] and on the Developer Platform modules
list [2]. It might also be useful for the platform bindings [3].
[1] http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/TwoPointEleven/Desktop
[2] http://live.
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 22:50 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Could all the module maintainers add themselves in the maintainer column
> on the Desktop modules list [1] and on the Developer Platform modules
> list [2]. It might also be useful for the platform bindings [3].
>
> [1] http://l
Hi.
I tried building HEAD off jhbuild last night and today and the result of
logging in doing some small tasks in the panel and opening a terminal
etc.
I filed one bug against gdk with a cairo related leak already, and I
found another one that I have a patch for in gnome-screenshooter.
Other tha
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 22:50 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Could all the module maintainers add themselves in the maintainer column
> > on the Desktop modules list [1] and on the Developer Platform modules
> > list [2]. It might also be useful for the platform bindings [3].
> >
Somewhat random set of comments:
- For all the reasons that it makes sense for GNOME to stick to it's
published schedules, it makes sense for GTK+ to stick to it's
published schedules. While we haven't always done a great job
in the past (GTK+-2.2.0 was particularly bad), that doesn't
mean
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 10:49 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 6/9/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Went ahead and did it myself. TextView is brutally slower (300-400%),
> some other things are 25-30% slower, and some things actually get
> faster. Disclaimer: I'm pretty sure I did this right
35 matches
Mail list logo
