I got the following response off-list from the gmime lead, which he's ok
with my re-posting here:

On 06/02/2011 08:53 AM, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> I don't know why Fedora 15 ships 2.5.x, that seems like a really silly
> thing to do. I think I recall the Balsa guys bringing this up in the
> past and I thought I explained to the Fedora guys that 2.5.x was API
> unstable. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding or something.
> That said, as far as timeline goes, I think 2.6 is basically ready for a
> final release, I've just been busy with other stuff lately. Assuming you
> don't have any major outstanding issues with the crypto stuff, I can
> just roll out a 2.6.0 release (which hopefully F15 will pick up, or, if
> not, just check gmime-2.6 >= 2.5.7) at any time.
> I think notmuch is the only thing making heavy use of the 2.6 crypto
> stuff right now, so you guys have priority.

So this actually makes me re-think my earlier objections to patches
against an unstable API, on two grounds:

 0) if we're the driving force for 2.6 crypto, we should exercise it so
we can give reasonable feedback before stabilization happens.

 1) it sounds like the API is near stabilization anyway, so it won't be
too much hair-pulling, other than any changes we recommend.

So if we can just get 0.6 released, i'll commit to making patches to
support gmime 2.6 for the next version.

(i'll probably start by urging debian's gmime folks to put a version of
gmime2.6 into the experimental repo for us to play with)


PS i still recommend that F15 should not ship gmime2.6 by default.  that
seems like a recipe for this kind of trouble.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

notmuch mailing list

Reply via email to