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