On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 09:54 +0200, sean finney wrote:
> 
> > Sounds like you would be in a good position to do it though.
> 
> Because I'm not a gnome dev, I (a) don't have push access, and (b)
> am a bit hesitant to go against Milan's wishes, since he's the dev
> who is primarily keeping things up for -mapi and has made his stance
> pretty clear.  I only brought it up because it seemed like there might
> be a change in that stance, and if so I'd be happy to share my
> currently unshared fixes in .32.

You're more than welcome to use git.infradead.org if you want. But even
if Milan sees the 2.32 branch as being dead and doesn't want to spend
any of his own time on it (and nobody can blame him for that), I would
hope that he wouldn't try to obstruct *you* if you feel you need to do
so.

> Then again, now that 3.0 is released I may try again to get something
> rolled together based on that since there are already a number of api
> breaks making backports difficult for .32, and it seems there are lots
> more in the pipe for 3.1.

Certainly, my point in maintaining fixes for 2.32 was *not* to
discourage people from upgrading. So if 3.0 is a viable option for you
then please do go ahead.

Having said that, the API breaks haven't *yet* reached the point where
we can't build evo-ews for 2.32 and 3.x from the *same* code base,
albeit with a number of icky ifdefs.

-- 
dwmw2

_______________________________________________
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