On 12/10/15 01:21, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
On Monday 12 October 2015 00:39:06 Ghislain Antony Vaillant wrote:
A new upstream version is available (3.18.0) which brings some more
improvement and bugfixes [1]. Please consider submitting an update
to the current package in experimental at least,
I can't upload 3.18.0 because it FTBFS as follows:
~~~~
/usr/bin/g-ir-compiler --includedir=. -o GitgExt-1.0.typelib GitgExt-1.0.gir
Could not find GIR file 'Gitg-1.0.gir'; check XDG_DATA_DIRS or use --
includedir
error parsing file GitgExt-1.0.gir: Failed to parse included gir Gitg-1.0
Makefile:6431: recipe for target 'GitgExt-1.0.typelib' failed
~~~~
That's unfortunate, but I am happy to hear that you are on it.
or even unstable,
if your opinion regarding feature parity between v0.2.x and v3.18.x
has changed.
No, my _assessment_ of 3.x hasn't change. Gitg-3 starts very slow and still
suffers from UI and functionality regressions:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=746923#c3
I tested 3.17.1 for a little while and I just could not use it.
Not my attention to start an argument here, but a few comments on the
points you mentioned:
* start-up times: *slow* is subjective and quite variable from one
user to another. For instance, gitg-3 starts in no-time for me.
* functionality regressions:
- given upstream GNOME track record, this is unlikely to change?
- following the same mindset, we would still be stuck with GNOME
2.x in Debian then?
I personally prefer the more modern interface of the latest versions.
Sorry but I do not share your irrational fancy for modern interface that
limit your ability to do certain things that can be done with old version of
Gitg.
Perhaps a separate source package for gitg-3 would please us all.
On a different note, since when sharing different views than someone
else make them *irrational*. Was the judging really necessary here?
Regards,
Ghis
