Hi, On 21/06/16 16:26, Peter Weber wrote: > I don't see here an active discussion about Gtk+4.0[1]? So I'm trying to > write about my thoughts, in a careful way. In the first moment, I thought > this is a good idea and just the numbering is misleading. Stability is what > developers want, we need it, we love it. With a few days distance, > numbering is just a small issue, I see this now entirely different and > three major issues:
Here are some thoughts I have about all this, from a downstream maintainer POV. My concern with this new scheme is that GTK+ libraries will have to bump the soname every 6 months (if they want to support the latest GTK+). That can be manageable for say vte or gnome-desktop, although it may be bad if some third party apps pick a dependency on the vte for GTK+ 4.2 but don't update it for GTK+ 4.4, as then distros would need to ship an increasing number of versions that are unlikely to get any support upstream. But do you expect WebKitGTK+ to bump the ABI every 6 months? I feel like the X.[024] releases are just snapshots of a development branch, with X.6 being the stable release, and I wonder if X.[024] shouldn't clearly be labelled as that, regardless of what version number is chosen (be it 4.0, 3.99.0, 4.0beta1 or whatever). Cheers, Emilio _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
