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
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
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
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 10:10 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
My feeling is just that at this point in the project's lifespan, our
users would be better served by a longer support window. They still
want to see improvements and new features, but more than anything I
think they just want stability
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
I've been kicking around this idea for awhile now, but haven't said
anything until now. I'm putting it out there as food for thought.
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
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Sasa Ostrouska cas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.comwrote:
I've been kicking around this idea for awhile now, but haven't said
anything until now. I'm putting it out there as food for thought.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com wrote:
I've been kicking around this idea for awhile now, but haven't said
anything until now. I'm putting it out there as food for thought.
Increasingly I'm feeling like the traditional 6-month release cycle is
just too
Matthew,
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Matthew Barnes mbar...@redhat.com wrote:
I've been kicking around this idea for awhile now, but haven't said
anything until now. I'm putting it out there as food for thought.
Increasingly I'm feeling like the traditional 6-month release cycle is
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 check our git's activity you will see that the most part of
bugs we are fixing are touching both
17 matches
Mail list logo
