Re: g-wrap release?

[Andreas Rottmann]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

> Howdy,
>
> As a companion to Andreas' update I wanted to post an update on
> guile-gobject. I want to release it. But we depend on g-wrap. We've been
> waiting for MONTHS for a g-wrap release. Rob, would you please consider
> adding Andreas as a co-maintainer with full commit rights? Either that
> or release something within a week or two. I don't think it's
> unreasonable to release at least once a year :-/
>
Well, while I agree that Rob is real slow, but things don't look that
bad, IMHO:

1) We can release from the newly created main-2.4 branch. This works
   with the last releaseased (1.3.4) G-Wrap. We should change the
   CFLAGS for the GTK+ wrapset to -O0, so that people don't get
   OOM-killed. IMHO, we should do this right now, to show we're well
   and alive. What version number should this one get?  0.6.0 seems
   like a good candidate; I think we should keep the 0.X naming scheme
   until we join the GNOME (beta) platform bindings.

2) I've a (probably ;)) working update to GNOME 2.6/GTK+ 2.4 lying
   here; I'll check that in later today. This one also still works
   with G-Wrap 1.3.4, so we could start a 0.7 (unstable) series for
   GNOME 2.6 pretty soon.

3) Now that basic support for GNOME 2.6 is in place, I can continue
   hacking on G-Wrap 2.0 and switching guile-gobject to it. I think
   it's fair giving the big difference in the codebase between G-Wrap
   1.3.X and 2.0 and the pace of Rob regarding G-Wrap to claim
   maintainership of the 2.0 branch.

   I hope that I can manage to produce a working G-Wrap
   2.0/Guile-GObject combination until after Easter. I promise that
   G-Wrap 2.0 will have a much higher release frequency :-).

Regards, Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | address@hidden      | address@hidden | address@hidden
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?