Re: Adding error reporting to GtkFileChooser

On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 08:43, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 20:32, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:21:04PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 16:45, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 15:48, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > > > > Some functions in GtkFileChooser don't report errors back to the caller:
> > > > 
> > > > We are hard API/ABI frozen at this point, but this is by policy, not
> > > > by necessity, so if we need to make an exception we can make an
> > > > exception, with the downsides:
> > > 
> > > 	There is no question in my mind that this change would delay the GNOME
> > > 2.6.0 release date.
> > > 
> > > 	Its down to you guys to make the call, but I would urge you to just
> > > suck it up and stick with the freeze.
> > 
> > I'll disagree here.  I'd rather slip the gnome release and get this
> > api correct than live with the mess until gtk-3.0 in the star trek
> > future.
> 
> 	The GTK+ team has set the date of March the 8th for 2.4.0 for the sole
> purpose of not delaying the GNOME 2.6.0 release. What I'm trying to
> point out is that if the API changes at this point it will delay the
> GNOME release even if the GTK+ release meets its target date.
> 
> 	At the very least, we need a decision on this.

It's really sucky, and it's our fault for tying GNOME to GTK.

But I think we should get the API right; assuming we're not planning on
jumping to GTK/GNOME 3 any time soon, people are going to be using this
API in the wild for quite a while and we don't want it to be the only
part of GTK that sucks.

-- 
Andrew Sobala <[email protected]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBARw+ZBv9K3NCDvFYRAtouAJ44B9LsQVP+C4nG7RxgVqgkMtM2AwCfV+Rf
uXcLrpWe16OzJfA1pwJa6bs=
=1gru
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----