On 11-10-17 04:27 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
On 18 October 2011 10:17, Matthew Brush wrote:
On 11-10-14 07:38 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
On 13/10/2011 12:53, Nick Treleaven wrote:
On 13/10/2011 00:55, Matthew Brush wrote:
So I would go for 2.16 overall if this brings us Glade 3 support.
It s
On 18 October 2011 10:17, Matthew Brush wrote:
> On 11-10-14 07:38 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>>
>> On 13/10/2011 12:53, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/10/2011 00:55, Matthew Brush wrote:
>
> So I would go for 2.16 overall if this brings us Glade 3 support.
It should, but I h
On 11-10-14 07:38 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
On 13/10/2011 12:53, Nick Treleaven wrote:
On 13/10/2011 00:55, Matthew Brush wrote:
So I would go for 2.16 overall if this brings us Glade 3 support.
It should, but I haven't thoroughly tested it with GTK+ 2.16 yet. Did
you try the gtkbuilder branc
On 11-10-17 09:22 AM, Colomban Wendling wrote:
I'm not against any GTK version (heh, I personally have 2.24 and 3.0
anyway ^^), but I think we shouldn't bump for no good reason. If we
need a new widget, or a new feature, OK, but if it's for 1 or 2
accessors and we anyway need some more that are
Le 13/10/2011 01:55, Matthew Brush a écrit :
> On 11-10-12 07:04 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>> On 12/10/2011 02:58, Matthew Brush wrote:
>>>
>>> I've also been working on getting rid of some of the uses of sealed
>>> members (ex. widget->window as opposed to
>>> gtk_widget_get_window(widget)). It se
On 15/10/2011 05:07, Matthew Brush wrote:
On 11-10-14 08:18 PM, Matthew Brush wrote:
There's seems to be a problem applying, saving and restoring the
background and foreground colours for the VTE, I couldn't figure it out
last time I looked. Not sure if you can have a peek at this, but I guess
On 11-10-14 08:18 PM, Matthew Brush wrote:
There's seems to be a problem applying, saving and restoring the
background and foreground colours for the VTE, I couldn't figure it out
last time I looked. Not sure if you can have a peek at this, but I guess
you'll need to boot into Linux to test.
On 11-10-14 07:38 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
On 13/10/2011 12:53, Nick Treleaven wrote:
On 13/10/2011 00:55, Matthew Brush wrote:
So I would go for 2.16 overall if this brings us Glade 3 support.
It should, but I haven't thoroughly tested it with GTK+ 2.16 yet. Did
you try the gtkbuilder branc
On 14/10/2011 15:38, Nick Treleaven wrote:
I did get a warning:
Gtk WARNING: Could not find signal handler 'on_term_font_set'
This is because on_term_font_set is not defined unless VTE support is
compiled in (on Windows it's disabled).
___
Geany
On 13/10/2011 12:53, Nick Treleaven wrote:
On 13/10/2011 00:55, Matthew Brush wrote:
So I would go for 2.16 overall if this brings us Glade 3 support.
It should, but I haven't thoroughly tested it with GTK+ 2.16 yet. Did
you try the gtkbuilder branch yet on your 2.16 install by any chance?
N
On 13/10/2011 00:55, Matthew Brush wrote:
On 11-10-12 07:04 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
On 12/10/2011 02:58, Matthew Brush wrote:
I've also been working on getting rid of some of the uses of sealed
members (ex. widget->window as opposed to
gtk_widget_get_window(widget)). It seems many of the acc
On 11-10-12 07:04 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
On 12/10/2011 02:58, Matthew Brush wrote:
I've also been working on getting rid of some of the uses of sealed
members (ex. widget->window as opposed to
gtk_widget_get_window(widget)). It seems many of the accessor functions
were added between 2.12 and
On 11-10-12 07:07 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Am 12.10.2011 16:04, schrieb Nick Treleaven:
So I would go for 2.16 overall if this brings us Glade 3 support.
Also we have to think twice because of the Gtk/Windows item brought up
earlier. (not sure atm what was the outcome)
From what I gather, th
Am 12.10.2011 16:04, schrieb Nick Treleaven:
> So I would go for 2.16 overall if this brings us Glade 3 support.
Also we have to think twice because of the Gtk/Windows item brought up
earlier. (not sure atm what was the outcome)
Cheers,
Frank
___
Geany-
On 12/10/2011 02:58, Matthew Brush wrote:
Hi all,
According to the recent discussions on the mailing list, its sounds like
we could safely require GTK+ >= 2.18 and still support a lot of
enterprise/LTS/legacy distros.
You might've noticed I pushed my gtkbuilder branch into geany/geany. To
use t
[...]
> So I was wondering if anyone was opposed to going from GTK+ 2.12 to 2.18 as
> the minimum supported GTK+ version. IMO, if we are going to raise the
> version this release cycle, it makes sense to do so sooner rather than later
> to maximize the time for finding and fixing bugs and so on.
Hi all,
According to the recent discussions on the mailing list, its sounds like
we could safely require GTK+ >= 2.18 and still support a lot of
enterprise/LTS/legacy distros.
You might've noticed I pushed my gtkbuilder branch into geany/geany. To
use this requires GTK+ 2.16 since it seems
17 matches
Mail list logo
