Re: [Evolution-hackers] e_contact_get_const api doesn't work anymore since a few weeks on debian/unstable
Srinivasa Ragavan a écrit : > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 20:35 +0200, Julien Puydt wrote: >> "TEL;TYPE=Home:sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > "TEL;TYPE=Home;TYPE=VOICE:sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > "TEL;TYPE=CELL:123.123.123.123\n" > > See it works now. Ok, reported to the contacts developers, since it was using their program that I got the dysfunctional vCard : http://bugzilla.o-hand.com/show_bug.cgi?id=298 Thanks, Snark ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Missing svn tags for e-d-s / evolution 2.18 releases
Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 16:57 +, Srinivasa Ragavan a écrit : > On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 18:57 +0200, Frederic Crozat wrote: > > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 16:36 +, Srinivasa Ragavan a écrit : > > > Frederic, > > > > > > One reason why me and Harish didn't want to tag is that we are able to > > > map the svn revision number to a particular release. I hope isn't so > > > difficult to get that from the ChangeLog/configure.in/NEWS commit logs. > > > At least that is how we do while preparing NEWS file for a dot release > > > to know what went in since the last release. > > > > > > If you have better points, We are open for it. Nothing against it :) > > > > I don't really see what it causing problem here : just tags the release > > corresponding to the commit for configure.in / NEWS / Changelog. It > > isn't really a big problem if there is another commit for the tag > > operation in SVN. > > I didn't say it a problem. I'm saying that the TAG would map directly to > a revision in svn which would be the revision of the commit of those > files. You can achieve what you want with tag with just revision number > itself. In case of CVS, you can't do this. If it is of difficulty to map > to a revision, no problem in resuming that again. So, I've just discussed with sri over IRC : -we agreed tagging is less needed now we have SVN than years ago, in the CVS days. -nevertheless, since other GNOME modules are following the tagging convention and since it can be often more convenient to rely on tags when doing diff than digging into svn log, sri agreed to start back tagging evolution tree when doing releases. -in short, we are in agreement ;) Thanks again to Evolution team ! -- Frederic Crozat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mandriva ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Missing svn tags for e-d-s / evolution 2.18 releases
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 18:57 +0200, Frederic Crozat wrote: > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 16:36 +, Srinivasa Ragavan a écrit : > > Frederic, > > > > One reason why me and Harish didn't want to tag is that we are able to > > map the svn revision number to a particular release. I hope isn't so > > difficult to get that from the ChangeLog/configure.in/NEWS commit logs. > > At least that is how we do while preparing NEWS file for a dot release > > to know what went in since the last release. > > > > If you have better points, We are open for it. Nothing against it :) > > I don't really see what it causing problem here : just tags the release > corresponding to the commit for configure.in / NEWS / Changelog. It > isn't really a big problem if there is another commit for the tag > operation in SVN. I didn't say it a problem. I'm saying that the TAG would map directly to a revision in svn which would be the revision of the commit of those files. You can achieve what you want with tag with just revision number itself. In case of CVS, you can't do this. If it is of difficulty to map to a revision, no problem in resuming that again. -Srini. > > Or am I missing something ? ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removal of implementation details from public API, any breakages?
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 12:38 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 11:33 +, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > > >From the current discussion, it looks like we are safe. Can we do > > something like this for this release before we dung them out? > > > > #ifdef E_D_S_DEPRECATED > > #include > > #endif > > The patches consist of removing functions or headers from the install, > these cannot be deprecated because they are still used by EDS itself. Hmm. Fine. Just go ahead then :) -Srini. > > I don't think there needs to be any notice: the headers and functions > are implementation details of libebook and libecal, and are not possible > to use outside of the implementation of libebook/libecal. > > Ross ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Missing svn tags for e-d-s / evolution 2.18 releases
Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 16:36 +, Srinivasa Ragavan a écrit : > Frederic, > > One reason why me and Harish didn't want to tag is that we are able to > map the svn revision number to a particular release. I hope isn't so > difficult to get that from the ChangeLog/configure.in/NEWS commit logs. > At least that is how we do while preparing NEWS file for a dot release > to know what went in since the last release. > > If you have better points, We are open for it. Nothing against it :) I don't really see what it causing problem here : just tags the release corresponding to the commit for configure.in / NEWS / Changelog. It isn't really a big problem if there is another commit for the tag operation in SVN. Or am I missing something ? -- Frederic Crozat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mandriva ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Missing svn tags for e-d-s / evolution 2.18 releases
Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 18:39 +0200, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 20:21 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue a écrit : > > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 18:03 +0200, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > > > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 19:24 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue a écrit : > > > > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 17:19 +0200, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > > > > > Hi Evolution / E-D-S maintainers, > > > > > > > > > > it appears that since CVS to SVN migration, no evolution / e-d-s > > > > > release > > > > > was followed by a SVN tag creation in /tags. > > > > > > > > > > These tags are very useful for you, maintainers but also for > > > > > contributors and vendors when they try to search for changes between > > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > > > Could you try to create those missing tags and make sure they are > > > > > created when releasing new tarballs in the future (I guess somebody > > > > > script was not migrated correctly to SVN ;) ? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks you in advance. > > > > > > > > in fact it seems evolution uses branches over tags > > > > > > > > evolution stable branch can be found at : > > > > http://svn.gnome.org/svn/evolution/branches/gnome-2-18 > > > > > > Branches and tags are different beast : > > > -branches are used to do developement for a particular release of GNOME > > > (here 2.18.x series) > > > -tags are pointing each release (ie tarball generation), regardless of > > > branches. > > > > > sorry I was unclear. I meant that afaics, evolution never tagged > > releases, or something definitely got lost in the cvs->svn transition. > > They did, check : > svn ls http://svn.gnome.org/svn/evolution/tags/ | grep EVOL > indeed, case sensitivity got me :) sorry for the confusion -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Missing svn tags for e-d-s / evolution 2.18 releases
Frederic, One reason why me and Harish didn't want to tag is that we are able to map the svn revision number to a particular release. I hope isn't so difficult to get that from the ChangeLog/configure.in/NEWS commit logs. At least that is how we do while preparing NEWS file for a dot release to know what went in since the last release. If you have better points, We are open for it. Nothing against it :) -Srini. On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 17:19 +0200, Frederic Crozat wrote: > Hi Evolution / E-D-S maintainers, > > it appears that since CVS to SVN migration, no evolution / e-d-s release > was followed by a SVN tag creation in /tags. > > These tags are very useful for you, maintainers but also for > contributors and vendors when they try to search for changes between > releases. > > Could you try to create those missing tags and make sure they are > created when releasing new tarballs in the future (I guess somebody > script was not migrated correctly to SVN ;) ? > > Thanks you in advance. ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Missing svn tags for e-d-s / evolution 2.18 releases
Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 20:21 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue a écrit : > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 18:03 +0200, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 19:24 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue a écrit : > > > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 17:19 +0200, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > > > > Hi Evolution / E-D-S maintainers, > > > > > > > > it appears that since CVS to SVN migration, no evolution / e-d-s release > > > > was followed by a SVN tag creation in /tags. > > > > > > > > These tags are very useful for you, maintainers but also for > > > > contributors and vendors when they try to search for changes between > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > Could you try to create those missing tags and make sure they are > > > > created when releasing new tarballs in the future (I guess somebody > > > > script was not migrated correctly to SVN ;) ? > > > > > > > > Thanks you in advance. > > > > > > in fact it seems evolution uses branches over tags > > > > > > evolution stable branch can be found at : > > > http://svn.gnome.org/svn/evolution/branches/gnome-2-18 > > > > Branches and tags are different beast : > > -branches are used to do developement for a particular release of GNOME > > (here 2.18.x series) > > -tags are pointing each release (ie tarball generation), regardless of > > branches. > > > sorry I was unclear. I meant that afaics, evolution never tagged > releases, or something definitely got lost in the cvs->svn transition. They did, check : svn ls http://svn.gnome.org/svn/evolution/tags/ | grep EVOL -- Frederic Crozat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mandriva ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Missing svn tags for e-d-s / evolution 2.18 releases
Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 18:03 +0200, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 19:24 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue a écrit : > > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 17:19 +0200, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > > > Hi Evolution / E-D-S maintainers, > > > > > > it appears that since CVS to SVN migration, no evolution / e-d-s release > > > was followed by a SVN tag creation in /tags. > > > > > > These tags are very useful for you, maintainers but also for > > > contributors and vendors when they try to search for changes between > > > releases. > > > > > > Could you try to create those missing tags and make sure they are > > > created when releasing new tarballs in the future (I guess somebody > > > script was not migrated correctly to SVN ;) ? > > > > > > Thanks you in advance. > > > > in fact it seems evolution uses branches over tags > > > > evolution stable branch can be found at : > > http://svn.gnome.org/svn/evolution/branches/gnome-2-18 > > Branches and tags are different beast : > -branches are used to do developement for a particular release of GNOME > (here 2.18.x series) > -tags are pointing each release (ie tarball generation), regardless of > branches. > sorry I was unclear. I meant that afaics, evolution never tagged releases, or something definitely got lost in the cvs->svn transition. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Missing svn tags for e-d-s / evolution 2.18 releases
Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 19:24 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue a écrit : > Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 17:19 +0200, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > > Hi Evolution / E-D-S maintainers, > > > > it appears that since CVS to SVN migration, no evolution / e-d-s release > > was followed by a SVN tag creation in /tags. > > > > These tags are very useful for you, maintainers but also for > > contributors and vendors when they try to search for changes between > > releases. > > > > Could you try to create those missing tags and make sure they are > > created when releasing new tarballs in the future (I guess somebody > > script was not migrated correctly to SVN ;) ? > > > > Thanks you in advance. > > in fact it seems evolution uses branches over tags > > evolution stable branch can be found at : > http://svn.gnome.org/svn/evolution/branches/gnome-2-18 Branches and tags are different beast : -branches are used to do developement for a particular release of GNOME (here 2.18.x series) -tags are pointing each release (ie tarball generation), regardless of branches. -- Frederic Crozat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mandriva ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Missing svn tags for e-d-s / evolution 2.18 releases
Le lundi 21 mai 2007 à 17:19 +0200, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > Hi Evolution / E-D-S maintainers, > > it appears that since CVS to SVN migration, no evolution / e-d-s release > was followed by a SVN tag creation in /tags. > > These tags are very useful for you, maintainers but also for > contributors and vendors when they try to search for changes between > releases. > > Could you try to create those missing tags and make sure they are > created when releasing new tarballs in the future (I guess somebody > script was not migrated correctly to SVN ;) ? > > Thanks you in advance. in fact it seems evolution uses branches over tags evolution stable branch can be found at : http://svn.gnome.org/svn/evolution/branches/gnome-2-18 -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
[Evolution-hackers] Missing svn tags for e-d-s / evolution 2.18 releases
Hi Evolution / E-D-S maintainers, it appears that since CVS to SVN migration, no evolution / e-d-s release was followed by a SVN tag creation in /tags. These tags are very useful for you, maintainers but also for contributors and vendors when they try to search for changes between releases. Could you try to create those missing tags and make sure they are created when releasing new tarballs in the future (I guess somebody script was not migrated correctly to SVN ;) ? Thanks you in advance. -- Frederic Crozat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mandriva ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removal of implementation details from public API, any breakages?
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 11:33 +, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > #ifdef E_D_S_DEPRECATED > #include > #endif Just FYI, EDS_DISABLE_DEPRECATED is what Gtk-Doc looks for. Matthew Barnes ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removal of implementation details from public API, any breakages?
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 11:33 +, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > >From the current discussion, it looks like we are safe. Can we do > something like this for this release before we dung them out? > > #ifdef E_D_S_DEPRECATED > #include > #endif The patches consist of removing functions or headers from the install, these cannot be deprecated because they are still used by EDS itself. I don't think there needs to be any notice: the headers and functions are implementation details of libebook and libecal, and are not possible to use outside of the implementation of libebook/libecal. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removal of implementation details from public API, any breakages?
Ross, >From the current discussion, it looks like we are safe. Can we do something like this for this release before we dung them out? #ifdef E_D_S_DEPRECATED #include #endif -Srini. On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 10:32 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 12:15 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > > It will be great if you can mail the details on the address book stuff > > as well. I would like the libebook clients like OOo, etc to comment on > > this. > > The addressbook changes are very similar: > > - e_book_view_new() is not public > - EBookListener and EBookViewListener are not public > > As before, these are not usable outside of libedata-book, so clients > should not be aware of their existence. > > I've had a quick look at the Zimbra Evolution code and it appears to not > use these either. > > Ross ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removal of implementation details from public API, any breakages?
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 12:15 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > It will be great if you can mail the details on the address book stuff > as well. I would like the libebook clients like OOo, etc to comment on > this. The addressbook changes are very similar: - e_book_view_new() is not public - EBookListener and EBookViewListener are not public As before, these are not usable outside of libedata-book, so clients should not be aware of their existence. I've had a quick look at the Zimbra Evolution code and it appears to not use these either. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removal of implementation details from public API, any breakages?
On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 11:29 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: > Hi, > > Last week I committed a patch to libebook, and want to commit a patch to > libecal[1], which removes private functions and types from the installed > headers. This has several consequences: > > - e_cal_view_new() is removed > - ECalListener is removed > - ECalViewListener is removed > > I believe that nobody is using these functions apart from libecal > itself, so this removal is safe. However, I'd appreciate it if anyone > writing advanced clients to EDS (like Zimbra or Brutas) remove their > currently installed headers, apply the patch, and rebuild. Brutus is safe. Thanks for the notice, jules ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
