On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 07:12:00AM -0600, Aaron Spike wrote:
Aaron Spike wrote:
Bob Jamison wrote:
Nope, it was 2.6 for .44, and 2.8 for .45. We wanted 2.8 for .44, thus the compromise.
Can anyone produce evidence from the list archive to support their claims?
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=20742303
Ah, so I'm not totally crazy:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 11:15 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
From the discussion, I gather that 2.6 *is* reasonably well supported on Mac. Thus, this suggests perhaps it would be wisest to do our 2.8 upgrade in two steps:
0.45 - Move our requirements to Gtk 2.6 Communicate our Gtk 2.8 ambitions to the Mac Gtk port maintainers. Encourage Inkscape Mac developers to experiment with 2.8 Around Sept, re-evaluate Gtk Mac 2.8 status
0.46 - Depending on evaluation, move to Gtk 2.8
Mental and Jon had affirmed this, however there doesn't appear to be a comment in the thread by Bob, so perhaps we've just gotten our wires crossed here, and are each remembering different things?
Bob, could you review the issues discussed in that thread and see what you think?
Despite what was agreed in that thread, we've given the issue another 5 months - which one would think *should* have been sufficient to get it fixed up. In the above, the expectation was that we'd have 0.45 out by last Sept and be moved onto gtk 2.8 by now.
Thus, I think we've given more than adequate wait time for Fink to upgrade to 2.8. Given that there is a new issue which necessitate going to gtk 2.8 now, I'd propose that we drop the previous agreement and move up the gtk version for this release.
Bryce