Comments on: Three interesting things http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2008/01/14/three-interesting-things/ Just another GNOME Blogs weblog Wed, 16 Sep 2009 01:25:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: ovitters http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2008/01/14/three-interesting-things/comment-page-1/#comment-207 ovitters Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:05:44 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2008/01/14/three-interesting-things/#comment-207 Mart, In this case the topic was visible. Lack of services and that topic bug is annoying... but I am not an IRC operator, so can't do much about it. Mart, In this case the topic was visible. Lack of services and that topic bug is annoying… but I am not an IRC operator, so can’t do much about it.

]]> By: Mart Raudsepp http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2008/01/14/three-interesting-things/comment-page-1/#comment-206 Mart Raudsepp Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:48:40 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2008/01/14/three-interesting-things/#comment-206 I think the IRC topic would be much more useful, if the GNOME IRC network wouldn't loose it for most servers all of the time. I typically just see that there is no topic at all. That said, I don't know the specific topic and question that was meant, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was because of the IRC network information syncing problems or whatever that plague the GimpNET. I think the IRC topic would be much more useful, if the GNOME IRC network wouldn’t loose it for most servers all of the time. I typically just see that there is no topic at all. That said, I don’t know the specific topic and question that was meant, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was because of the IRC network information syncing problems or whatever that plague the GimpNET.

]]> By: ovitters http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2008/01/14/three-interesting-things/comment-page-1/#comment-205 ovitters Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:14:43 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2008/01/14/three-interesting-things/#comment-205 Anders: Non-ancient docs are available on library.gnome.org (meaning 2.0 onwards). GTK 1.2 until a few months ago appeared higher in the search results than GTK 2.0. That was a crazy situation (people often referred to these docs). Those 1.2 docs weren't 'removed'. What happened is that the current content on developer.gnome.org (which had all kind of old & outdated documentation) has been redirected to library.gnome.org. That site updates automatically.. e.g. new GTK docs should appear within max 15min or so after a tarball has been released. The GNOME Library has software from ~ GNOME 2.8 onwards. There aren't plans to put older stuff on there (well, unless someone does the work and it isn't a hack). Regarding the documentation GTK 1.2 documentation: it is included in GTK (meaning, fetch the tarball and you have it). The post is more about that someone has a need for these docs. Anders: Non-ancient docs are available on library.gnome.org (meaning 2.0 onwards). GTK 1.2 until a few months ago appeared higher in the search results than GTK 2.0. That was a crazy situation (people often referred to these docs).
Those 1.2 docs weren’t ‘removed’. What happened is that the current content on developer.gnome.org (which had all kind of old & outdated documentation) has been redirected to library.gnome.org. That site updates automatically.. e.g. new GTK docs should appear within max 15min or so after a tarball has been released.
The GNOME Library has software from ~ GNOME 2.8 onwards. There aren’t plans to put older stuff on there (well, unless someone does the work and it isn’t a hack).

Regarding the documentation GTK 1.2 documentation: it is included in GTK (meaning, fetch the tarball and you have it).

The post is more about that someone has a need for these docs.

]]> By: Anders http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2008/01/14/three-interesting-things/comment-page-1/#comment-204 Anders Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:20:36 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2008/01/14/three-interesting-things/#comment-204 Old GTK+ docs can be quite hard to find... Old GTK+ docs can be quite hard to find…

]]>