On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:21 -0600, Sankar P wrote: > >>> On 10/18/2010 at 07:01 PM, in message > <1287408711.3126.11.ca...@localhost.localdomain>, Matthew Barnes > <mbar...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 12:10 +0530, chen wrote: > > > The other solution was to maintain all exchange providers in a single > > > package, merging evolution-exchange, evolution-ews and evolution-mapi > > > into a single package. Other collaboration providers like > > > evolution-groupwise and evolution-kolab (yet to be upstreamed) will > > > remain as separate packages. > > > > If we -have- to glob providers together I would prefer the alternate > > solution: merge all the Exchange providers into one git module, break > > GroupWise out from E-D-S into it's own git module, and leave the rest > > alone. > > > > This is not unlike the recent gnome-games debate on desktop-devel-list, > > except that we already have shared libraries for the common parts with > > fairly stable APIs (libebook, libecal, etc.). > > > > Jon's comments on the gnome-games issue reflect my own for this one: > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2010-October/msg00049.html > > The control/ownership of the code can be made clear using provider-level maintainer-ship (like groupwise, exchange, kolab2 maintainers etc.) inside a single package. Of-course package is one, but with independent sub-modules and owners.
Is there any other disadvantage or point of concern ? > > > > > > I prefer not to have every provider in its own module. If we make changes in > the baseclass, it will be ignored and won't go into unmaintained providers. > More providers translates to more work for packagers downstream and also > during the release time for maintainers as well, with not much benefits. > > Just my 2 cents. I agree. I would not term as un-maintained providers. If they are really un-maintained, which means many bugs exist and people are not able to use it, it has to be pruned at some point. But certainly I see advantages to have the providers in a single package which would help us adapt to the API changes well, translations could be shared, packagers can look for updates for one package and maintainers would have less burden in releasing many packages. - Chenthill. > > Sankar > > _______________________________________________ > evolution-hackers mailing list > email@example.com > To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers