On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 07:21:46AM -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 10:58 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > And if a distribution ships a few weeks before a release, that now
> > means they can be shipping a version of Evolution which is a *year*
> > old, instead of only six months old.
> I agree with David.  My main frustration with Evo right now is that I'm
> always a release behind because my distribution appears to be
> chronically one Gnome release back (I understand this is due to my
> distribution and not the responsibility of the developers), for whatever
> reason.  That means I was stuck on 3.4 until May (which was bad as there
> were numerous problems with 3.4), and will be using 3.6 for most of the
> rest of the year.
Hm. I'm wondering whether this is a problem for the rest of GNOME, too. Do the 
arguments brought up in this thread apply to Evolution (and friends) only?
If no: Would the rest of GNOME also benefit from a different release schedule?
If yes: Why would that be? The arguments on favour of a longer cycle seem to be 
very generic to me.

evolution-hackers mailing list
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...

Reply via email to