quote who=Federico Mena Quintero
Mark Shuttleworth, during his keynote at GUADEC, gave an awesome demo of
Ubuntu's meta-bug tracker: they maintain pointers for the same bug across
the different bug trackers of different distros, and thus they magically
know when any of them manages to fix
quote who=Luis Villa
On 7/22/05, Sri Ramkrishna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems like the Ubuntu folks are coming up with the solutions anyways.
I (and I expect others) would certainly be displeased if we became
dependent on a proprietary tool to manage our bugs or release process. As
long
Hi Federico,
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 22:58 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
I work in the desktop team at Novell, and a large part of my work
consists of maintaining NLD 9, which uses GNOME 2.6. When a bug comes
in for that version, my life becomes a little hell of trawling old bug
On 7/22/05, Mark McLoughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Federico,
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 22:58 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
I work in the desktop team at Novell, and a large part of my work
consists of maintaining NLD 9, which uses GNOME 2.6. When a bug comes
in for that
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 23:42 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 17:20 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
There could or could not be significant issues in 2.7. The point is its
not certain and it introduces significant *risk* to the schedule. We
went through the same thing with 2.6
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 09:40 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
So, gtk 2.6.0 was released Dec 16/2004, approximately 3 months before
the GNOME release. It is 2 months until the next GNOME release.
[snip]
I believe he meant 2.4 (the filechooser release). GTK+ 2.4 was released
on 16th March 2004:
On 7/22/05, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/22/05, Mark McLoughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Federico,
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 22:58 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
I work in the desktop team at Novell, and a large part of my work
consists of maintaining NLD 9, which
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 09:24 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
(2) Obviously the distros want to include an incredibly minimal set
of patches in their maintenance releases. But those releases also lag
anywhere between months and years behind HEAD. Better collaborative
'enterprise' management of the
On Jul 22 2005, Murray Cumming wrote:
I believe he meant 2.4 (the filechooser release).
(yes)
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
weeks not months, (as soon as we can, and
before GNOME 2.12).
Those are fantastic news Carl, thanks, am looking forward for an API
stable Cairo.
On a separate note:
I still think that making Gnome 2.12 depend on Gtk 2.8 is a mistake
considering that there is no way Gnome 2.12 could take
On 7/21/05, Miguel de Icaza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a separate note:
I still think that making Gnome 2.12 depend on Gtk 2.8 is a mistake
considering that there is no way Gnome 2.12 could take advantage of the
handful of APIs at this point: we are already supposed to have chosen
Hello,
We had already said apps should go forward with caution back in early
June[1] (and apps likely started doing so sooner; it wasn't until
Frederic brought up the issue[2] that we started considering not using
gtk+-2.8 for Gnome 2.12). We said with caution at the time because
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 14:49 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
But there is no reason to tarnish Gnome's reputation because some people
feel that Gtk 2.8 is too cool to wait. Shipping a slower, more fragile
version of Gnome and which in addition will not benefit for the most
part on any of the new
On 7/21/05, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 14:49 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
But there is no reason to tarnish Gnome's reputation because some people
feel that Gtk 2.8 is too cool to wait. Shipping a slower, more fragile
version of Gnome and which in
Hello,
The QA team does not consider a GTK+ 2.8-based GNOME more fragile than a
2.6-based one. The QA team believes the issues involved in upgrading
this component of the GNOME desktop are no greater than upgrading any
other fundamental library.
Let me rephrase a little: the QA team[1]
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 06:10:04PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
Having GTK+ 2.8 along with GNOME 2.12 was *always* the plan. Just that
some people seemed to have cold feet.
Well, Gtk+ 2.7.0 came out on June 20th, so that is a month ago. If
someone was making plans to have GNOME 2.12 ship
Hi Miguel,
On Thu, July 21, 2005 21:39, Miguel de Icaza said:
This is a breach of the time-line and a breach of deadlines that we have
imposed upon ourselves to follow.
AFAIK, there's no breach of deadlines. As Elijah already noted, this
announcement is just a *clarification*. The consensus
On 7/21/05, Miguel de Icaza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
The QA team does not consider a GTK+ 2.8-based GNOME more fragile than a
2.6-based one. The QA team believes the issues involved in upgrading
this component of the GNOME desktop are no greater than upgrading any
other
On 7/21/05, Miguel de Icaza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For how long has the QA team been running a Gtk 2.7.3 based desktop?
And what kinds of tests have been done? I mean to get an idea of the
testing happening in this area that lead to this very strong
endorsement.
We know that the
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 14:49 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
Hello,
We had already said apps should go forward with caution back in early
June[1] (and apps likely started doing so sooner; it wasn't until
Frederic brought up the issue[2] that we started considering not using
gtk+-2.8
On 21/07/05 18:19, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
Did we take a round of votes, or it was just a consensus based on the
the last man standing on the thread?
I do not remember being asked to vote on this.
When was the last time you (or anyone) voted on d-d-l about anything?
James.
out).
* There is little benefit from using Gtk 2.8 in Gnome 2.12
at a fairly high risk price.
* Those who want Cairo in their apps can use it today
*anyways*.
Miguel.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 17:20 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
There could or could not be significant issues in 2.7. The point is its
not certain and it introduces significant *risk* to the schedule. We
went through the same thing with 2.6 and it seems we learned nothing,
see your own original view:
On 7/21/05, Miguel de Icaza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
We know that the testing at most has been running for six days.
No, you don't. You asserted it. And it happens to be false. ;-)
How exactly have you been testing Gnome with Gtk 2.7.3 for more than six
days, I would love
Just a quick clarification...
On 7/21/05, Elijah Newren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/21/05, Miguel de Icaza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How exactly have you been testing Gnome with Gtk 2.7.3 for more than six
days, I would love to know what kind of time machine you have.
The original
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:58:23 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
Thre are some bugs remaining (like missing subpixel antialiasing of
fonts) but they are beeing worked on.
Yes, the known bugs are being worked on. In fact, support for subpixel
antialiasing of fonts is in CVS now. And the
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 15:18 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
[1] worth noting that if Novell is concerned about the stability of
HEAD, or the violation of promises about quality, Novell is more than
welcome to participate in the QA team. It would be even more exciting
if (like Ubuntu, or Red Hat)
Seems like the Ubuntu folks are coming up with the solutions anyways.
Also note that some of the problem might be that CVS might make it hard
to do.
sri
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 00:22 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 7/22/05, Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heya,
Please bear with me along
On 7/22/05, Sri Ramkrishna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems like the Ubuntu folks are coming up with the solutions anyways.
I (and I expect others) would certainly be displeased if we became
dependent on a proprietary tool to manage our bugs or release process.
As long as it isn't open, launchpad
Hello,
This was sort of already decided in the thread, but after the release
team meeting today, we figured it was worth mentioning officially.
GNOME 2.12 *will* depend on gtk 2.8.
This seems to add significant risk to Gnome 2.12 and I believe its
reckless for Gnome to do such a release in
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 23:17, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
* This breaks the published schedule, new features and modules
were supposed to be locked-down on July 13th:
http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning_2fTwoPointEleven
Or, to put it in different words: how does the
On 7/20/05, Miguel de Icaza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
This was sort of already decided in the thread, but after the release
team meeting today, we figured it was worth mentioning officially.
GNOME 2.12 *will* depend on gtk 2.8.
This seems to add significant risk to Gnome 2.12
risk to Gnome 2.12 and I believe its
reckless for Gnome to do such a release in the light of breaking up with
the published plans that we have presented to various consumers of
Gnome.
Having GTK+ 2.8 along with GNOME 2.12 was *always* the plan. Just that
some people seemed to have cold feet
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 17:17 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
I would like to propose that adopting Gtk+ 2.8 should happen after each
module has branched for the 2.12 release which means that applications
will get another 4-5 months of testing of Gtk+ and Gtk+ 2.8 will get 4-5
months
Le mercredi 20 juillet 2005 à 23:31 +0200, Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 23:17, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
* This breaks the published schedule, new features and modules
were supposed to be locked-down on July 13th:
Hello,
This seems to add significant risk to Gnome 2.12 and I believe its
reckless for Gnome to do such a release in the light of breaking up with
the published plans that we have presented to various consumers of
Gnome.
Having GTK+ 2.8 along with GNOME 2.12 was *always* the plan
Hello,
* Not API frozen.
* We do not have a schedule for Cairo being API frozen,
which incidentally breaks the API rules:
http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/api_rules.html
These are rules for libraries part of the GNOME platform. They're not
enforced
Owen Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There really aren't a whole lot of new APIs in GTK+-2.8 other than
the addition of Cairo ... while I'm sure there would be some benefit
letting Cairo develop for another 6 months, 12 months, etc, it has
been getting quite a bit of testing in a broad range
On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 18:10 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
What is being suggested is that we should make Gnome 2.12 on Gtk 2.8
which in turn depends on Cairo 0.5-1 (as of today).
GTK+ depends on 0.5.2, in fact.
Cairo is:
* Not API frozen.
* We do not have a schedule
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:10:04 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
* Cairo itself has a list of requirements for 1.0 in
cairo/ROADMAP and it looks far from finished.
Section A9 will break the API, work remains on A10, A12
and possibly A13. This is in addition to
(Note to d-d-l people: the start of the thread is at
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/release-team/2005-July/msg00086.html and
was supposed to be cc'ed to d-d-l, but Johan mistyped the address ;-))
On Sun, July 17, 2005 22:40, Murray Cumming said:
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 17:27 -0300, Johan Dahlin
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 14:01 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
As for my position on this: I was at first reluctant to the shipping
with GTK+ 2.8 option, but I really believe we can find the problems
if it gets tested *now*. So I'm all for GTK+ 2.8 *now*.
I've been running it for a few weeks now
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 14:01 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Yes, we GNOME 2.12 is planned to use GTK+ 2.8. There's always a slight
chance that we would try to revert to 2.6 is something went terribly
wrong, but things seem to be OK so far.
It seems, from a vendor point of view (I'm not a
--- Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
snip
As for my position on this: I was at first reluctant to the shipping
with GTK+ 2.8 option, but I really believe we can find the problems
if it gets tested *now*. So I'm all for GTK+ 2.8 *now*.
Besides a couple of visual glitches in XFree86
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 14:01 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
(Note to d-d-l people: the start of the thread is at
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/release-team/2005-July/msg00086.html and
was supposed to be cc'ed to d-d-l, but Johan mistyped the address ;-))
On Sun, July 17, 2005 22:40, Murray
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 14:42 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
It seems, from a vendor point of view (I'm not a vendor), that we need
to make a real statement, without the there is a slight chance that
we'll revert to 2.6.
There's always a slight chance of reverting for all modules, though
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 09:05 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
[I'm not opposed to 2.7 going in anymore- what bugs there are seem to
be getting fixed very promptly- so this is just for information.]
On 7/18/05, Mark McLoughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 14:01 +0200, Vincent Untz
On 7/18/05, Mark McLoughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 09:05 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
[I'm not opposed to 2.7 going in anymore- what bugs there are seem to
be getting fixed very promptly- so this is just for information.]
On 7/18/05, Mark McLoughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Llu, 2005-07-18 at 09:21 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
The number of upstream bugs they file against GNOME is basically
insignificant- in the teens per month, on average. Perhaps that is
something that is not actively encouraged? If there is a significant
community there, I'd like to get them
any
distro that ships live CDs of development snapshots is going to have
an order of magnitude or two more testers than they would otherwise.
Looking forward to a rocking Gnome 2.12 release with Gtk+ 2.8,
Elijah
:)
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
50 matches
Mail list logo
