From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32092 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2003 23:18:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact guile-gtk-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: guile-gtk-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32082 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2003 23:18:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO snoopy.pacific.net.au) (61.8.0.36) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2003 23:18:54 -0000 Received: from mongrel.pacific.net.au (mongrel.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.107]) by snoopy.pacific.net.au (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.4) with ESMTP id h8MNIqG4028366; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:18:52 +1000 Received: from localhost (ppp44.dyn228.pacific.net.au [203.143.228.44]) by mongrel.pacific.net.au (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) with ESMTP id h8MNGNXY030804; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:16:25 +1000 Received: from gg by localhost with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1A1Zx8-0000bb-00; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:18:46 +1000 To: Marius Vollmer Cc: guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: guile-gtk.texi References: <87k78hqufd.fsf@zip.com.au> <87he391ton.fsf@zip.com.au> <87u1794mch.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87u177ysm1.fsf@zip.com.au> <87brtcenn7.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> From: Kevin Ryde Mail-Copies-To: never Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:18:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87brtcenn7.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> (Marius Vollmer's message of "Mon, 22 Sep 2003 19:30:52 +0200") Message-ID: <87fziol8dl.fsf@zip.com.au> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-q3/txt/msg00088.txt.bz2 Marius Vollmer writes: > > Should we go ahead and name it "Guile-Gtk-1.2"? Hmm, my first thought would be no, that just "Guile-Gtk" is enough since the version requirements/limitations are spelt out clearly. But if this stuff is basically a dead end then it may as well be given a name that emphasises the deadness.