On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:06 PM, <philip.chime...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:30 AM Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <poch...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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. >> > > Thanks! It's good to get opinions from all over the place. > > 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. >> > > I'm expecting this will become less and less of a problem as apps move to > Flatpak as a means of distribution. >
How does Flatpak solve this problem? > But do you expect WebKitGTK+ to bump the ABI every 6 months? >> > > That does seem to point to a problem — if an app uses Library X which does > follow the unstable GTK series, and Library Y which doesn't, then the app > developer is forced to stick to the stable series of GTK and an old version > of Library X in order to accommodate Library Y. > > Any thoughts? > > 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). >> > > In my opinion the label "unstable release" communicates exactly that. I'm > not sure what "development branch" communicates that "unstable release" > doesn't? > The convention in GNOME up until know has been that even numbers are for stable releases, and odd ones are for unstable releases. I didn't know GTK+ 4.0 would be considered an unstable release. > Regards, > Philip C > > _______________________________________________ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > > -- Jasper
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
