Meeting on irc.gnome.org:#gtk-devel Meeting started August 3 2004 17:01 EST (21:01 UTC) In attendence: Matthias Clasen (mclasen), Owen Taylor (owen), Morten Welinder (gmorten), Carlos Garnacho (garnacho), Ray Strode (halfline) who are we missing ? sweden, denmark, mexico... andersca is on vacation, jrb is on vacation I can mumble some bad jokes in Danish, if needed. federico is fooderico... don't know whats up with ssp, but I guess we should start anyway... ok, so according to the schedule, the 2.5.2 release in about two weeks should be almost api frozen. How are we doing on testing on the major additions ... in particular iconview? owen: I don't think the icon view has seen real testing yet. anders added a demo to gtk-demo, and James used it for his icon picker proposal, thats about it... matthias: Ugh. I hate to finalize without any testing owen: would you expect the testing to reveal api issues ? matthias: Well, yes, that would be the hope... Probably some good review would also be to the point (I haven't gotten around to reviewing the API yet, myself, really should) but that only goes so far owen: but isn't the point of declaring the api frozen well before the 2.6 release to give others a chance to test the new api before it gets released ? matthias: We can declare the API "we think it is pretty much done", or "slushy frozen" but declaring it frozen sort of makes the testing pointless owen: thats basically how I interpreted api freeze milestones so far: "we think we're done - barring any errors or oversights" owen: of course, that doesn't mean that testing the new stuff before the api freeze is a bad idea... matthias: Hmm, I guess there is some difference in my mind with "done with API freeze milestone" and "API frozen" owen: If you think it helps, I can see to get a testiconview into gtk+/tests which would let you test various settings and their combinations... matthias: The question isn't "how does it look" but "will it fit applications needs" owen: that question is best answered by application programmers... matthias: Yes, I don't think we can declare GTK+-2.6 API frozen until we get some such feedfback owen: EggIconList is used in a number of apps... That's certainly a good sign Maybe we can get some of those apps to review the icon view api. I can ask around. sorry, can I ask about the GtkMessageDialog API change I proposed? IMHO it could be worth adding something like this for 2.5.x/2.6 garnacho: I think so. But I'm not convinced of deprecating the existing message dialog constructors. matthias: they may not be deprecated, I thought about deprecating them because we can get the same with the new functions garnacho: I think if you wrote the impleentation, what the set of constructors should be would be a detail that could be sorted out yes maybe :) garnacho: does your implementation map the current message dialog text to primary or to secondary ? secondary, the primary is left to title text garnacho: so, in your implementation gtk_message_dialog_set_secondary_markup() is doing the same as gtk_message_dialog_set_markup() ? yes maybe the constructors do something different (the GtkButtonsType stuff), but that function is virtually the same garnacho: have you considered going with set_markup() / set_title_markup(), etc instead of primary/secondary, and save one redundant function ? oh, that could be a nice solution I used the primary and secondary words for coherence with the hig but it's ok with me I'll cook a new proposal with this suggestion garnacho: That would be nice. Please keep the set_extra_widget() as a separate proposal. ok Meeting ended August 3 18:17 EST (22:17 UTC)