On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Andrew Cowie <and...@operationaldynamics.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 19:47 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: >> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 10:00 +1100, Andrew Cowie wrote: >> > On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 22:24 +0100, Tadej Borovšak wrote: >> > >> > > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk3/unstable/gtk-migrating-2-to-3.html >> > >> > Any reason not to have the URLs at .../gtk/3.0/... ? >> >> It's there now. > > Really? Here we get: > > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/3.0/gtk-migrating-2-to-3.html > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/stable/gtk-migrating-2-to-3.html > > 404 > > I just noticed that other /gtk/stable/ URLs point to GTK 2.24; is GTK > 3.0 now not the stable release? Regardless, I still don't understand:
We essentially now have a stable 2.x release (2.24) and a stable 3.0 release. library.gnome.org shows them as http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/stable and http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk3/stable. which I think is clear enough. > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/2.24/GtkWindow.html > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/3.0/GtkWindow.html > > What's the parallel filename problem? The filename problem happens in local packages. Could it have been solved by embedding the version number in the path ? Certainly. But thats not how gtk-doc is set up to work... _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list