I tried just to read and not ask anything but no amount of reading has resulted in any enlightenment, so:
Why not do what almost everyone does and have 4.X mean “stable” while anything with alpha/beta/pre/rc means unstable? KDE made the same mistake with the exact same version number, i.e having the number look stable to everyone while the software was (as they clearly said everywhere!) a pre-release. People used it, distros shipped it, it was buggy and incomplete and everybody was confused and angry as a consequence. Was it simply lack of historic knowledge that led to the GTK-4.0 decision? Besides, there's no gain in specifying some arbitrary minor version to be suddenly stable (as it was said GTK 4, “somewhere around 4.6” would become). There's exclusively a disadvantage, i.e. that you can't rely on common sense, convention, or any other kind of rule to know if that's a stable version. You have to know our look it up. Just use http://semver.org and you have something that follows the principle of least surprise. Sébastien Wilmet <swil...@gnome.org> schrieb am So., 14. Aug. 2016, 13:41: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 04:19:30AM +0000, philip.chime...@gmail.com wrote: > > 4. Maintainers of libraries that depend on GTK (such as GtkSourceView, > VTE, > > WebKitGTK) are concerned about having to maintain essentially a separate > > library for each unstable release. > > When GTK+ breaks the API, it doesn't mean that a higher-level library > needs to break API too. For example, GtkTextView has a quite stable API, > so I think GtkSourceView will still have a stable API too, to keep > backward compatibility during GtkSourceView 4. > > > Did I forget anything? > > It is expected that GNOME apps will follow the unstable GTK+ versions. > But some GNOME apps (or other libraries, for that matter) are developed > almost entirely by people contributing during their spare time. And the > amount of spare time/energy/willingness to maintain code can vary widely > between development cycles. This includes gedit. I'm not sure it is a > good idea for gedit to follow the unstable versions of GTK+. > > -- > Sébastien > _______________________________________________ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list >
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
