Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-28 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 07:38 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: It seems like we have a general consensus among developers in favor of a longer release cycle. Next week I think I'll pitch the idea to the user list just to get a sense of the response. Just to follow up, I posted this to the user list

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-28 Thread Tobias Mueller
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-28 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 01:26 +0200, Tobias Mueller wrote: 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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-28 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 07:21 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: Not being familiar with Evo development I'm not sure how feasible it is, but ideally part of the change in release cycle would mean divorce from the Gnome version lockstep, and Evo being able to build against multiple versions of Gnome. If