I'm not sure this is the right list, as this is more of a policy
question than a dev question.

I recently logged a bug (#639970) that crops up every now and again for
me, and it was closed as OBSOLETE because I raised it against Evolution
2.28.  This surprised me, because this 2.28 is the current shipping
version for Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (Long Term Support).

Now, you could argue that:
  a) the gnome/evo team can't be blamed for Ubuntu shipping an obsolete
     version,
  b) the gnome/evo team simply doesn't have the resources to maintain
     older versions, so it's reasonable to mark older trees unsupported
     pretty quickly, and
  c) Ubuntu should be responsible for fixing the problem, or upgrade to
     v2.30 or whatever

I think these are good arguments from the point of view of the
developer, but it's not good news for the user, and it's hard for the
average user to distinguish Ubuntu from Gnome in this situation.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but if 2.28 cannot be maintained it
would still have felt less frustrating and more reasonable if:
  a) I'd been told whether the bug was a known bug and has been fixed in
a more recent version of evo.  This would potentially give a route for
downstream to port a bug fix, or to contribute a 2.28 patch.
  b) If it's not a known bug, it might have made sense to recommend I
report this to Ubuntu rather than Gnome, and why.

I really like the "long term release" model for my work machine, and
Evolution is critical.  It's not a great feeling to know that it's an
obsolete version.

Just my two cents.

Matt

Matt Davey        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend        
mcda...@mrao.cam.ac.uk      to the death your right to say it".  Voltaire



_______________________________________________
evolution-hackers mailing list
evolution-hackers@gnome.org
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

Reply via email to