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 <[email protected]> > > 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 > > http://github.com/nzjrs/pygtk/compare/master...add-gtk-2.20-api > > 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. John > > John > > > > > Regards, > > > > Tomeu > > > > > John > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > python-hackers-list mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/python-hackers-list > > > > > _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [email protected] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://faq.pygtk.org/
