[pygtk] How About a PyGtk Stable Release?
john.stowers.lists at gmail.com
Sun Jul 11 11:46:12 WST 2010
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:32 +1200, John Stowers wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 09:57 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 15:30, John Stowers <john.stowers.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > It would be great if we could do a PyGtk stable release to align with
> > > the last gtk-2.0 release. I am happy to do this if no-one else wants to.
> > I guess you should go for it.
> OK great. It would be appreciated if someone could review this branch
> It is the API additions for Gtk-2.20. It should be uncontroversial.
> I will push this in the next few days if no-one objects.
This has now been pushed.
> > > Also, would it be worth numbering this release as pygtk-2.22? It would
> > > be nice if the version numbers matched again. Although this might not be
> > > worth the effort if the pygobject version number != the glib version
> > > number.
> > I'm open to changing pygobject's versioning scheme if it helps.
> OK cool. I will wait to see if anyone else voices an opinion first.
I think it would be good if the version numbers were aligned again - it
would certainly then be clear that PyGtk 2.22 was to be used with Gtk
+-2.22, i.e. the last releases in the 2.X series.
In making this change would it also be a good opportunity to make the
PyGObject version number match.
The developer story for the next 12 months of python+gtk development is
already hard to explain, small improvements like version number
alignment could go some way to improving that.
> > Regards,
> > Tomeu
> > > John
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > python-hackers-list mailing list
> > > python-hackers-list at gnome.org
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/python-hackers-list
> > >
More information about the pygtk