On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:44 +0200, Simon van der Linden wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:08 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:57, Simon van der Linden
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 10:07 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> > >> The rationale is that it will help people
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:08 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:57, Simon van der Linden
> 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 al
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:57, Simon van der Linden 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.
>
>
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
k
Hi,
John Stowers has proposed that PyGObject changes it's version
numbering to match that of glib. This means that the next stable
version will be 2.26 instead of 2.22.
The rationale is that it will help people a bit to know what to expect
from a given PyGObject release. He's already numbering hi
