On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 08:53 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > That's great; thanks. I'll do a little more testing on the patches > > I've cherry-picked into my trees, and then unless someone else has > > objected in the meantime I'll push them. > > Hi, > I objected against this many times, directly to you, on IRC, with no > effect, obviously. If I recall correctly, the reason why release-team > decreased releases is that distributions were *not* using .2 release. > Which is just the opposite you are trying to convince us. If they are > not using official releases, why should they use unofficial branch?
Fedora does. As Yves-Alexis said, Debian (and thus Ubuntu?) does. And MeeGo does. Even before we start looking at other distributions, that is *enough* duplication of effort that it seems worthwhile to collaborate on a single code base rather than each having their own 'fork' and backporting fixes from HEAD for themselves. > By the way, how would you look for a fix user reported to your > distribution, as a distribution maintainer? > ... > Note that I do not expect anyone looking into git branch for a > particular fix, ... That's all very true, for a *specific* fix for a bug that a user has managed to report. Having said that, if the distro *were* currently running 2.32.1, I'd hope the 'workflow' you outline would *also* include checking in the gnome-2-32 branch to see if the fix has *already* been backported and tested there? By collecting the backported patches into a central tree, we don't break the workflow you describe — it stills works just as before, with an extra 'shortcut' to a fully-backported-and-tested patch in some cases. But I'm not thinking *just* about specific fixes for bugs that get reported. Part of the benefit of a central tree is that if a bug gets reported in *one* distribution and fixed there, the backported fix can benefit users of *all* distributions. Take the issue with ordering of modified recurrences, for example. How many users would manage to actually track that down and make a coherent bug report, and how many would just be inconvenienced by the fact that changes sometimes don't show up right in Evolution, and put it down to gremlins? I feel sure that the reason that bug went unreported for so long was *not* because nobody actually *saw* it. By putting that fix into a 2.32.3 release, we potentially get that fix out to a large number of users of distributions who are stil on 2.32 (which includes Fedora, for the next 8 months or so). I appreciate that you think I'm wasting my time. Perhaps I am; time will tell. But my time is my own to waste. My main concern is to ensure that I'm not wasting *your* time. And since you can choose to completely ignore what we're doing in the gnome-2-32 branch, I think we're safe on that front. -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers