Hi. 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.
Cheers, Tobi _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers