On Nov 8, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Robert Park wrote: > Alice is an application developer who has written a non-trivial PyGTK2 > application. She is informed that PyGTK2 is no longer supported and > that she'll need to port her app to stay current. She looks at the > available options and sees that she can either port to PyGTK3 or > PyGObject. She doesn't really know what PyGObject is, but based on the > name alone determines that PyGTK3 is the successor to PyGTK2. She > begins porting her app to PyGTK3 and eventually completes her port > successfully. Now what? She just spent a bunch of time porting to an > evolutionary dead-end and is left with something that is still old, > broken, and unsupported. Now she has to spend a bunch MORE effort > porting to PyGObject.
Hi. I'm Alice, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm heavily invested in PyGTK2 in a long-term project. As far as I can tell, PyGObject is a low level library that doesn't serve the same purpose as PyGTK at all. What's the relationship between the new PyGObject and the old? What kind of porting do I have to look forward to, and on what time scale? > I think the community as a whole would be FAR better served by having > not just better PyGObject code, but better documentation for PyGObject > (including porting HOWTOs). Yes, please. Thanks, Steve (not really Alice) -- -- stephen.lan...@nist.gov Tel: (301) 975-5423 -- -- http://math.nist.gov/mcsd/Staff/SLanger/ Fax: (301) 975-3553 -- -- NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8910, Gaithersburg, Md 20899-8910 -- -- "I don't think this will work. That's why it's science." -- -- Naomi Langer (age 6), 17 Feb 2003 -- _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list