On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 19:25 +0000, Rob Taylor wrote: > Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 13:02 -0500, Sean Kelley wrote: > >> I do worry about existing indefinitely on Gtk+ 2.8 and others on Gtk+ > >> 2.6 as patches are submitted (fixed point) and changes proposed, but > >> no action taken. So our recourse is to maintain those patches in our > >> Subversion repositories and pick and choose what works. > > > > I share your pain. I have a bunch of patches in Novell's package for > > Nautilus and Gnome-VFS, that are not upstream, even though they were > > sent for review a long time ago. The maintainers have very good reasons > > for not taking the patches as they are. But *they* will not fix > > *Novell's* problems. *I* have to fix Novell's problems; that's why they > > pay me. I expect you to do the same for the problems in the embedded > > platform space in GTK+. > > > > I'm a little confused about what you actually mean here! Do you mean we > should expect to have to maintain large patch sets for embedded > platforms? I guess a gtk+-embedded branch would make some sense in that > case as there are a number of players working in this area. > I don't think any of the embedded people want gtk+ maintainers to do > their work, but they do want somewhere where they can work together, and > it seems at this moment, mainline isn't this - which is of course > ideally what everyone wants.
Can't speak for Gtk+ maintainer, but I don't think it's a problem to use a Gtk+ branch for embedded work. Did you ask? > Thanks, > Rob Taylor -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Commandment Three says Do Not Kill, Amendment Two says Blood Will Spill" -- Dan Bern, "New American Language" _______________________________________________ Performance-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/performance-list
