On 26 Jul 2001 00:17:03 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >you are obviously not well informed about the current state of >GTK+-2.0. No, I don't _care_ about the current state of the development of an unreleased package. We should not be using unreleased code. Why can't we just use 1.3.6? That's a frozen release that should be reasonably close to the eventual 2.0.0 release. Why should we introduce this sort of instability to GIMP development when we don't have a good reason to? When 1.3.7 comes out, we can advance to that. There is simply NO good reason to be dependent on the CVS HEAD, no matter how stable the GTK developers think it might be. Kelly _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Kelly Martin
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Adam D. Moss
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Nick Lamb
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Sven Neumann
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port pcg
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Kelly Martin
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port pcg
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Kelly Martin
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Lourens Veen
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Sven Neumann
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Kelly Martin
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Sven Neumann
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port pcg
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Kelly Martin
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Michael Natterer
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Malcolm Tredinnick
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Nick Lamb
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Malcolm Tredinnick
- Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port Seth Burgess