On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:13 PM Jasper St. Pierre <jstpie...@mecheye.net> wrote:
> 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? > If an app was released as a Flatpak, it would target a Flatpak runtime. There would not be a choice between targeting VTE-for-GTK-4.2 or VTE-for-GTK-4.4, and so distributions would not need to ship a VTE-for-GTK-4.2 straggler that some app was still targeting. 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. > There are several different version numbering schemes proposed on this wiki page [1]. I was referring to the term "unstable release" versus "development branch". [1] https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GTK%2B/Lifecycle
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
