On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com wrote:
Increasingly I'm feeling like the traditional 6-month release cycle is
just too short for Evolution. In terms of development, we have a pretty
short window for landing major changes and allowing adequate time for
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 02:54 +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
I also fully agree with your suggestion.
As we have discussed, users are reporting bugs against 3.8.x now and
they will need to wait at least 6 months before they get a fix in
3.10.x. I mean, from the stability point of view it
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 10:59 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 02:54 +0200, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
I also fully agree with your suggestion.
As we have discussed, users are reporting bugs against 3.8.x now and
they will need to wait at least 6 months before they get a
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 10:58 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
My concern is that it could also be longer before new features and
fixes actually make it into a release. For example, if we were on an
annual schedule and people were still using Evolution 3.6 today
instead of Evolution 3.8 we'd
Hi Fabiano,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio fabi...@fidencio.org wrote:
Srini,
I really wouldn't want EDS to be part of this, if we ever want it to
be a proper platform/core material. Just Evolution would be better fit
for this model IMHO.
Could I ask you why?
If you
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:28 PM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
I don't think that makes sense. As Fabiano points out, Evo and EDS are
*very* closely tied. Even in the *stable* branch in 3.8.4 there are
fixes for EDS/EWS which require corresponding fixes in Evo.
Breaking the close
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 10:10 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
Increasingly I'm feeling like the traditional 6-month release cycle is
just too short for Evolution.
Hi,
I'm replying slightly later, I was thinking of this a bit. Generally
I agree, I also feel like the 6-month release cycle is
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 06:42 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
... even it brings more work to us. For a good reason, of course.
By the way, it also means that any so-called white-space cleanups, which
I always understood as a one-time job, not a multiple-times-per-releases
job, should either stop
