On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 14:07, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>
>> I'm a bit concerned about the port to python3+gtk3+introspection being
>> a bit too big of a stretch. Python developers traditionally are a bit
>> less "dauntless" than other developer c
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>
> I'm a bit concerned about the port to python3+gtk3+introspection being
> a bit too big of a stretch. Python developers traditionally are a bit
> less "dauntless" than other developer communities and many will be put
> off by having to build p
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 13:56, John Stowers wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 13:24 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:20, John Stowers
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 11:12 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alternatively, if distros were able to support the combinatio
On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 13:24 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:20, John Stowers
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 11:12 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >>
> >> Alternatively, if distros were able to support the combination
> >> Python2+Gtk2+PyGObjectWithIntrospection
> >
> > Jus
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:20, John Stowers wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 11:12 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>
>> Alternatively, if distros were able to support the combination
>> Python2+Gtk2+PyGObjectWithIntrospection
>
> Just to be clear, do you mean that distributions will likely ship
>
> Pytho
On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 11:12 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>
> Alternatively, if distros were able to support the combination
> Python2+Gtk2+PyGObjectWithIntrospection
Just to be clear, do you mean that distributions will likely ship
Python2+PyGtk2+(Gtk2-.gir)+(PyGobjectWithIntrospection+(Gtk3+.gir
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 23:51, Colin Walters wrote:
> [ Resurrecting this thread as I just got back from travelling ]
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:12 PM, John Stowers
> wrote:
>>
>> Something like "If you wrote a python plugin for GEdit/Rhythmbox/Totem
>> then you need to rewrite/fix it to use py
[ Resurrecting this thread as I just got back from travelling ]
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:12 PM, John Stowers
wrote:
>
> Something like "If you wrote a python plugin for GEdit/Rhythmbox/Totem
> then you need to rewrite/fix it to use pygobject gobject-introspection
> if you want it to work on GNOM
Am Donnerstag, den 05.08.2010, 17:53 +0200 schrieb Maciej Piechotka:
> May I propose that:
> Future 2.31.x/2.32.x uses GTK+ 2.0
> Future 2.9x.x uses GTK+ 3.0 (especially if released along the 2.31.x/2.32.x)
That is already the plan.
andre
--
mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed
http://www.iomc.de/ |
On 28/07/10 15:48, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A few release team members talked with various people during the first
> few days at GUADEC to get a better feeling of where we stand on our road
> to GNOME 3.0. We held a meeting later and decided that GNOME 3.0 should
> be postponed to M
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:28 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> What I would recommend in that case is to create a 2.32 branch off
> 2.30, and move master to 2.90. But I would not worry too much about
> distributors, we can generally handle version discontinuities (even if
> it is not nice and requi
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 12:55 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>>
>> - just release a new 2.30.x release with additional fixes: this is
>> perfectly fine, especially if the development in master is
>> explicitly targerted at GNOME 3.
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 12:55 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>
>- just release a new 2.30.x release with additional fixes: this is
> perfectly fine, especially if the development in master is
> explicitly targerted at GNOME 3. A good example here is gedit.
This can be problematic if a mo
Le jeudi 29 juillet 2010 à 13:16 +0200, Jonh Wendell a écrit :
> Em Qui, 2010-07-29 às 12:55 +0200, Vincent Untz escreveu:
>
> > + your module has been ported to GTK+ 3: that's the case which is
> >causing concerns. We explicitly do *not* want people to just go back
> >to GTK+ 2 (that wou
On Sun, 2010-08-01 at 20:42 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> 2010/8/1 Bastien Nocera :
> >> +1
> >>
> >> I don't get why people is getting so upset about the delay,
> >
> > Probably because the "people" either support GNOME for a distribution,
> > or maintain loads of modules in the GNOME release
2010/8/1 Bastien Nocera :
>> +1
>>
>> I don't get why people is getting so upset about the delay,
>
> Probably because the "people" either support GNOME for a distribution,
> or maintain loads of modules in the GNOME release set. Or both.
That doesn't really answer the question, I'm not assum
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 11:22 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> 2010/7/30 Johannes Schmid :
> > Hi!
> >
> >> Something like "If you wrote a python plugin for GEdit/Rhythmbox/Totem
> >> then you need to rewrite/fix it to use pygobject gobject-introspection
> >> if you want it to work on GNOME 2.32 and GNOM
2010/7/30 Johannes Schmid :
> Hi!
>
>> Something like "If you wrote a python plugin for GEdit/Rhythmbox/Totem
>> then you need to rewrite/fix it to use pygobject gobject-introspection
>> if you want it to work on GNOME 2.32 and GNOME 3.0"?
>
> Wouldn't it be more useful to just release a gedit 2.30
Hi!
> Something like "If you wrote a python plugin for GEdit/Rhythmbox/Totem
> then you need to rewrite/fix it to use pygobject gobject-introspection
> if you want it to work on GNOME 2.32 and GNOME 3.0"?
Wouldn't it be more useful to just release a gedit 2.30.5 for 2.32 and
focus on getting all
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 01:00 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> On 07/30/2010 12:39 AM, John Stowers wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:32 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> >> On 07/30/2010 12:28 AM, John Stowers wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> It's not as s
On 07/30/2010 12:39 AM, John Stowers wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:32 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
On 07/30/2010 12:28 AM, John Stowers wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
It's not as simple: you can't use pygtk and pygi at the same time in the
same program.
I
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 10:39 +1200, John Stowers wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:32 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> > On 07/30/2010 12:28 AM, John Stowers wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> > >> It's not as simple: you can't use pygtk and pygi at the same time
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:32 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> On 07/30/2010 12:28 AM, John Stowers wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> >> It's not as simple: you can't use pygtk and pygi at the same time in the
> >> same program.
> >
> > Is that still true if PyGtk+
On 07/30/2010 12:28 AM, John Stowers wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
It's not as simple: you can't use pygtk and pygi at the same time in the
same program.
Is that still true if PyGtk+friends is built against Gtk-3.0 etc? That
is not my understanding.
This ha
On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 00:23 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> On 07/30/2010 12:13 AM, John Stowers wrote:
> > I have no objection to that. My problem is that in the space of one
> > minor release, *every* python plugin for a gtk application (e.g [1]) has
> > skipped this 'dying' phase and move straig
On 07/30/2010 12:13 AM, John Stowers wrote:
I have no objection to that. My problem is that in the space of one
minor release, *every* python plugin for a gtk application (e.g [1]) has
skipped this 'dying' phase and move straight to 'dead'. That is not a
nice backwards compatibility story for pyt
> >
> > Would you consider supporting non pygobject-g-i (i.e. traditional)
> > python plugins in libpeas if I finish the pygtk-3.0 stuff [1]?
>
> The thing is, I don't really want to write pygtk-based bindings. The
> goal is to allow application writers to *not* write bindings, and those
> who
On 07/29/2010 03:11 PM, John Stowers wrote:
This is not so easy for some modules. Especially, those who rely on
bindings and have been working toward gobject-introspection support (as
gedit, totem and vinagre did, by supporting libpeas) must deal with the
fact that those new bindings (or at least
On 07/29/2010 03:00 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
- pygobject with g-i support won't be part of that release
Right, that's indeed a bigger issue I didn't though about.
Actually I was not right here: After talking with Tomeu and Colin,
pygobject-introspection with stable gi support might happen
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 15:00 +0200, Xavier Claessens wrote:
>
> > - dconf won't be part of that release
>
> Really? So what will happens for apps that are already ported to
> GSettings, like Empathy?
>
well, they should be part of the GNOME 3 beta, not of 2.32.
Again, we can't do a 2.32 release
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:44 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:56 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >
> > Given that apps that wanted to port to GSettings are already ported, I
> > really don't see why we're advising to use GTK+ 2.x/3.x selection at
> > configure-time when we've
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:50 +0200, Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> On 07/29/2010 01:06 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> >> Speaking about my modules, I will not accept any changes to make them
> >> work with GTK+ 2.x again, nor would I want people to waste their times
> >> doing that.
> >
> > Why? As I under
Le 29/07/10 13:50, Steve Frécinaux a écrit :
On 07/29/2010 01:06 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Speaking about my modules, I will not accept any changes to make them
work with GTK+ 2.x again, nor would I want people to waste their times
doing that.
Why? As I understand, GTK3's only advantage is t
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:56 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> Given that apps that wanted to port to GSettings are already ported, I
> really don't see why we're advising to use GTK+ 2.x/3.x selection at
> configure-time when we've been telling people to target GTK+ 3.x.
Surely GNOME 2.32 can use
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 13:06 +0200, Xavier Claessens wrote:
> Le 29/07/10 09:56, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:24 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
> >> Paolo Borelli wrote:
> >>
> >>> I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
> >>> can and cannot use:
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 14:26 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 12:54 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
>
> > right, because of this, I think 2.32 should just be 2.30 + some
> > backported changes. If we release 2.32 with some modules using
> > gsettings/gtk3/etc and others not using it,
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 12:54 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> right, because of this, I think 2.32 should just be 2.30 + some
> backported changes. If we release 2.32 with some modules using
> gsettings/gtk3/etc and others not using it, we end up having 2.32 =
> gnome 3 beta, don't we?
>
> As for cont
Christian Persch wrote:
> >- add a --enable-gtk=2.0/3.0 configure flag: for some modules, it's
> > really easy to do and it's enough. Frédéric did it for a few
> > modules, and here's an example in gcalctool:
> > http://git.gnome.org/browse/gcalctool/commit/?id=a2250ad2
>
> Jus
On 07/29/2010 01:06 PM, Xavier Claessens wrote:
Speaking about my modules, I will not accept any changes to make them
work with GTK+ 2.x again, nor would I want people to waste their times
doing that.
Why? As I understand, GTK3's only advantage is to have GtkApplication,
which is being backport
Hi;
Vincent Untz wrote:
> (Porting to GTK+ 3.0 does not mean that you won't be able to use GTK+
> 2.0 anymore -- see what we are suggesting with the
> --enable-gtk=2.0/3.0 configure flag)
[...]
>- add a --enable-gtk=2.0/3.0 configure flag: for some modules, it's
> really easy to do and it
Em Qui, 2010-07-29 às 12:55 +0200, Vincent Untz escreveu:
> + your module has been ported to GTK+ 3: that's the case which is
>causing concerns. We explicitly do *not* want people to just go back
>to GTK+ 2 (that would be a regression towards GNOME 3). There are
>three solutions:
>
>
Le 29/07/10 09:56, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:24 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
Paolo Borelli wrote:
I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
can and cannot use: for instance will the new glib be part of the
release (and hence gsettings etc)?
Le jeudi 29 juillet 2010, à 10:41 +0200, Piñeiro a écrit :
> A explaination of what it is required from part of the applications
> would be good, for example what it is expected related to gsettings
> and gtk 3.0 to this release.
It is not strictly required for 2.32 to port to GSettings and GTK+ 3
Hi Bastien,
Le jeudi 29 juillet 2010, à 09:56 +0200, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> I believe I also mentioned that problem in various discussions at GUADEC
> and I would have expected the release team to come up with a good
> definition before telling people to backtrack on the changes required by
>
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:56 +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:24 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
> > Paolo Borelli wrote:
> >
> > > I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
> > > can and cannot use: for instance will the new glib be part of the
> >
Hi,
Le jeudi 29 juillet 2010, à 09:45 +0200, Paolo Borelli a écrit :
> libpeas relies on introspection, if introspected bindings and in
> particular pygobject are not going in 2.32 then I am not sure it makes
> sense to use it. At least for gedit, we do not want to break plugin
> api/abi multiple
From: Bastien Nocera
> Given that apps that wanted to port to GSettings are already ported, I
> really don't see why we're advising to use GTK+ 2.x/3.x selection at
> configure-time when we've been telling people to target GTK+ 3.x.
I don't understand this "apps that wanted to port to GSettings"
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:24 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Paolo Borelli wrote:
>
> > I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
> > can and cannot use: for instance will the new glib be part of the
> > release (and hence gsettings etc)?
>
> There will be both a glib a
libpeas relies on introspection, if introspected bindings and in
particular pygobject are not going in 2.32 then I am not sure it makes
sense to use it. At least for gedit, we do not want to break plugin
api/abi multiple times so we want to align the switch to gtk3, pyobject
introspection, libpeas
Paolo Borelli wrote:
> I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
> can and cannot use: for instance will the new glib be part of the
> release (and hence gsettings etc)?
There will be both a glib and a GTK+ 2.x release in September; modules
should still be ported to us
I still would like to have a definitive description of what 2.32 apps
can and cannot use: for instance will the new glib be part of the
release (and hence gsettings etc)?
Paolo
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 02:01 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 28.07.2010, 15:54 +0200 schrieb Paolo Borelli
Am Mittwoch, den 28.07.2010, 15:54 +0200 schrieb Paolo Borelli:
> Does this mean that gnome 2.32 will use gtk2? or gtk3 will be released
> in time and 2.32 modules can rely on it?
The release-team wants GTK 3.0 to be released before Christmas 2010.
An option we would like to encourage is to provi
On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 15:48 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:
> We will still release a stable version of GNOME in September, and we'll
> call it 2.32. We encourage maintainers to add a configure flag to easily
> make their modules use GTK+ 2 and GTK+ 3, or to create a gnome-2-32
> branch where the 2.3
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> A few release team members talked with various people during the first
> few days at GUADEC to get a better feeling of where we stand on our road
> to GNOME 3.0. We held a meeting later and decided that GNOME 3.0 should
> be
Hello all,
A few release team members talked with various people during the first
few days at GUADEC to get a better feeling of where we stand on our road
to GNOME 3.0. We held a meeting later and decided that GNOME 3.0 should
be postponed to March 2011 to make sure this release will have the high
55 matches
Mail list logo
