On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:15 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
>
> I'm not sure its expected in the future. Apparently there is some
> confusion from the different version numbers of current glib/gtk+ which
> is why there is a desire to resync the numbers.
I think it's safe to say that Gtk+ has sett
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 09:11 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 03:13 -0500, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 20:02 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> >
> > > Great news!
> > >
> > > I now remember that Tim wanted to release glib and gtk+ in sync with a
> > > 2.16.0
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 03:13 -0500, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 20:02 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
>
> > Great news!
> >
> > I now remember that Tim wanted to release glib and gtk+ in sync with a
> > 2.16.0 release number. Does that also mean that the plan is to have a
> > new
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 21:29 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Pascal's patch just wasn't very far along...he said so himself when he
> attached it.
> I reviewed it and he never came back to it. I waited until SoC was
> over to not step
> on his toes, and then reworked his patch myself. My reworked
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 20:02 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Great news!
>
> I now remember that Tim wanted to release glib and gtk+ in sync with a
> 2.16.0 release number. Does that also mean that the plan is to have a
> new gtk+ release for GNOME 2.22?
A more likely result is that they will have
