Re: gtk+ DOAP file

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Olav Vitters wrote: > Is it ok if I create a doap file in the gtk+ repository? > > MAINTAINERS file isn't really needed. I wouldn't remove that, but doap > file allows me to specify a some other things like mailing lists, > homepage, description and so on. No obje

gtk+ DOAP file

Is it ok if I create a doap file in the gtk+ repository? MAINTAINERS file isn't really needed. I wouldn't remove that, but doap file allows me to specify a some other things like mailing lists, homepage, description and so on. -- Regards, Olav ___ gtk-d

Re: libegg: Removing old directories

On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 13:03 +1300, John Stowers wrote: > On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 10:51 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 20:03 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Murray Cumming > > > wrote: > > > > libegg has lots of directories that have just

Re: [PATCH] dconf: increase minimum glib version

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 12:19:31PM -0400, Ryan Lortie wrote: > On 11-02-10 03:51 PM, Robert Schwebel wrote: > >what do you think about this patch? > > Sorry for the delay. I'm a somewhat casual reader of this list so I > didn't notice your message. The patch has been committed just now. \o/ Th

please test: dconf 0.7.3

I just released dconf 0.7.3. I consider this release to be more or less 'frozen' for the GNOME 3 release. If emergency changes are needed then we can make those and release another tarball, but otherwise I will probably just let this one go out with the release. In short: please package and

Re: [PATCH] dconf: increase minimum glib version

hi Robert, On 11-02-10 03:51 PM, Robert Schwebel wrote: what do you think about this patch? Sorry for the delay. I'm a somewhat casual reader of this list so I didn't notice your message. The patch has been committed just now. Thanks ___ gtk-dev

Re: How gvdb_table_is_valid works on glib/dconf

hi Joshua On 11-02-16 04:09 AM, Joshua Lee wrote: I can not understand while gvdb_table_is_valid can check the on-disk gvdb table is valid. The very first thing that comes in any GVDB file is the string "GVariant". That's normally why *data should be non-zero, so !!*data will be 1. When d

Re: Type-safe G_CALLBACK

Hi, On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 7:55 AM, David Zeuthen wrote: > Hey, > > Is there any reason we don't have something similar to > G_DEFINE_CALLBACK() as described below in [1]? It seems like it would > increase type-safety a lot... OK, got around to doing this - see https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show