From: Dom Lachowicz (doml@appligent.com)
Date: Mon Jun 24 2002 - 09:57:23 EDT
Hi guys,
GTK2 will (*must*, actually) be ready for the next release, especially
if someone helps me out a little bit. You all know (or can read back
through the archives) what main sticking points are left. A GNOME2 port,
well, I'll need to find more free time I suppose, esp. since I'm not
very interested in doing this work.
Cuenca - merge in your Xft stuff with HEAD and commit. I or Hub will
merge the GTK2 work with HEAD shortly afterwords.
Dom
On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 05:22, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> I wonder in light of Joaquin's work (see my posting to the "more Xft
> stuff" thread), and would like feedback from the whole team, whether
> we might not need to have two development branches; one a
> continuation of the 1.x line; this would contain Martin's table code,
> Joaquin's xft code, footnotes and endnotes code and similar, and
> lead toward and intermediate 1.2 release. The second developement
> branch would lead to 2.0 release eventually, and would contain the
> Pango/gtk2 stuff.
>
> My main reason for this suggestion is that it will take a while before
> we have a 2.0 release with the Pango stuff; things are moving along
> slower than I have been hoping. However, much work has been
> done already that could eventually be released in an intermediate
> release, and it would be pitty to hold it back for many months just
> because other changes are not yet finished. So, I think the best way
> would be to brach present head into 1.x and 2.x development
> branches. The present stable would be left as is at present for
> bugfixes only, and after the 1.2 release would be replaced with
> stable 1.2 branch. The 2.x-dev would be Pango-enabled and gtk2
> dependant, so we could remove the #ifdef WITH_PANGO defines as
> soon as the Pango code provides basic functionality, while 1.x-dev
> would be Pango-less, gtk1 based, so that all the existing Pango code
> would be removed from it.
>
> If we agreed this was a good idea, the question remains which
> should be the head (I would prefer the Pango/gtk2 branch, as it
> would be heading toward the next major release), and what
> procedure would be used to for maintaining the non-head dev
> branch. The easiest would probably be that each developer would be
> responsible to commit all changes to both branches when
> applicable, although, we might want to have a formal maintainer, who
> would be sent patches.
>
> I am eager to hear you thoughts guys.
>
> Tomas
-- Dom Lachowicz <doml@appligent.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 24 2002 - 10:01:23 EDT