[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Pan-users] 0.134 and Beyond
From: |
Travis |
Subject: |
Re: [Pan-users] 0.134 and Beyond |
Date: |
Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:21:41 -0700 |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Kerr" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 13:27 PM
Subject: [Pan-users] 0.134 and Beyond
> I've gotten my git account refreshed at gnome.org and have started
> committing changes for 0.134. :)
>
> For starters what I'd like to do is get caught up with the other
> libraries and tools that have changed since 0.133 came out.
> The GCC 4.4 compile fixes that Daniel reported and that K Haley
> has fixed in his github repo are an obvious example of that.
>
> Even more important, IMO, is getting 0.134 ready for GNOME 3.
> Pan 0.133 uses a /lot/ of deprecated glib, gdk, and gtk API calls.
> All those API calls are going away in GNOME 3.
> If Pan isn't ready, it will go away too.
>
> Other "upkeep" issues in the same vein would be to support newer
> versions of GMime and to use glib 2.14's regular expression API
> instead of requiring PCRE.
>
> ===
>
> Looking past 0.134, I'm not sure how much time I'll have for Pan.
> Probably not much. Unlike the my last pre-0.90 hiatus, I don't
> have a pile of new Pan code waiting in the wings... that hobby
> time has gone to Transmission.
>
> I'm very happy that K Haley's repo exists, but we also need to
> make official releases once in awhile, since that's what most
> Pan users see. That requires someone with write access
> to git.gnome.org and rebelbase.com.
>
> One model would be for me to do this, rolling things "upstream"
> from github to git.gnome.org and making old-fashioned tarballs
> once in awhile.
>
> Another model, which would IMO be better, would be a committee
> of people existed to do these things, and if I were just one
> of many people involved. I still have a special love for Pan,
> but at this point I've got more love for it than free time.
>
> Lastly, I'm not sure there's any point in keeping these
> awkward pre-1.0 numbers going any longer. I doubt anyone
> except Duncan and me -- or maybe just Duncan, come to think
> of it -- remember the remaining goals for 1.0. If we were
> to name the next release 1.0, that would at least signal to
> the rest of the world that Pan still has some life left in it. :)
I'm not much of a *nix use (with zero coding skills) so I use the Windows
version of Pan and like it very much.
I sure would hate to see Pan wilt on the vine.
--
Travis in Shoreline Washington
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: 0.134 and Beyond, (continued)
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: 0.134 and Beyond, Charles Kerr, 2009/09/28
- [Pan-users] Re: 0.134 and Beyond, walt, 2009/09/28
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: 0.134 and Beyond, Charles Kerr, 2009/09/28
- [Pan-users] Re: 0.134 and Beyond, Matej Cepl, 2009/09/29
- Re: [Pan-users] 0.134 and Beyond, Rhialto, 2009/09/29
[Pan-users] Re: 0.134 and Beyond, Jim Henderson, 2009/09/28
Re: [Pan-users] 0.134 and Beyond,
Travis <=
Re: [Pan-users] 0.134 and Beyond, Jeff Berman, 2009/09/28
- Re: [Pan-users] 0.134 and Beyond, Wayne E. Nail, 2009/09/28
- Re: [Pan-users] 0.134 and Beyond, Jeff Berman, 2009/09/28
- [Pan-users] Re: 0.134 and Beyond, Duncan, 2009/09/29
- [Pan-users] Re: 0.134 and Beyond, Petr Kovar, 2009/09/29
- Re: [Pan-users] Documentation (was: 0.134 and Beyond), Charles Kerr, 2009/09/29
- [Pan-users] Re: Documentation (was: 0.134 and Beyond), Petr Kovar, 2009/09/29
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Documentation (was: 0.134 and Beyond), Steve Davies, 2009/09/30
[Pan-users] Re: 0.134 and Beyond, Matej Cepl, 2009/09/29