On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:22:06 +0200
Sébastien Wilmet <swilmet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 07:17:34PM +0100, Chris Vine wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 13:40:55 +0200
> > Sébastien Wilmet <swilmet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > When GTK+ breaks the API, it doesn't mean that a higher-level
> > > library needs to break API too. For example, GtkTextView has a
> > > quite stable API, so I think GtkSourceView will still have a
> > > stable API too, to keep backward compatibility during
> > > GtkSourceView 4.
> > However, if your application depends on two GTK-based libraries, the
> > developers for one of which proceed to adopt a development path
> > using unstable GTK versions and one where they stick to stable,
> > surely you are doomed? Likewise if the two libraries decide to
> > adopt different stable versions (not impossible with a two-year
> > cycle for stable releases).
> Yes, that's why it's more important for libraries to follow unstable
> GTK. For apps, it's less important.
> GtkSourceView will probably follow unstable GTK, while still trying to
> keep the GtkSourceView 4 API stable.
I was not referring specifically to gnome based libraries. There are
plenty of others, which will definitely not want to follow the unstable
series. Even a two year cycle of stable GTK versions will probably be
problematic for them.
It really comes down to the question of what GTK is. If it is the
GnomeToolKit (or GTK developers are happy for it to become the the
GnomeToolKit) then I can see the merit in the proposal. Otherwise it
looks to me like a suicide note.
gtk-devel-list mailing list