Re: [Evolution-hackers] Maintenance fork for Evolution / EDS 2.32

2011-04-08 Thread David Woodhouse
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 08:53 +0200, Milan Crha wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: That's great; thanks. I'll do a little more testing on the patches I've cherry-picked into my trees, and then unless someone else has objected in the meantime I'll push them.

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Maintenance fork for Evolution / EDS 2.32

2011-04-05 Thread Chenthill Palanisamy
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Milan Crha mc...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: That's great; thanks. I'll do a little more testing on the patches I've cherry-picked into my trees, and then unless someone else has objected in the meantime I'll push

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Maintenance fork for Evolution / EDS 2.32

2011-04-05 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 16:31 +0530, Chenthill Palanisamy wrote: This would certainly help distributions which want to stay with Evolution 2.32 for a while.. My only concern here is, while cherry-picking patches how would we take care of the translations and documentation ? Are we adhering to

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Maintenance fork for Evolution / EDS 2.32

2011-04-04 Thread Milan Crha
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: That's great; thanks. I'll do a little more testing on the patches I've cherry-picked into my trees, and then unless someone else has objected in the meantime I'll push them. Hi, I objected against this many times, directly to

[Evolution-hackers] Maintenance fork for Evolution / EDS 2.32

2011-04-01 Thread David Woodhouse
Although the Evolution developers have moved on to better things and consider Evolution 2.32 to be a dead end, there are distributions still trying to ship this dead end. It is the latest stable release of Evolution, after all. Rather than all the distributors working separately to keep track of

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Maintenance fork for Evolution / EDS 2.32

2011-04-01 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 18:00 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: I hope that eventually, we might be permitted to use the real gnome-2-32 branch in GNOME git for this, rather than having to do it elsewhere. If that branch is a dead end and would otherwise be unused, then there's no harm in letting

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Maintenance fork for Evolution / EDS 2.32

2011-04-01 Thread David Woodhouse
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 13:28 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 18:00 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: I hope that eventually, we might be permitted to use the real gnome-2-32 branch in GNOME git for this, rather than having to do it elsewhere. If that branch is a dead end and

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Maintenance fork for Evolution / EDS 2.32

2011-04-01 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 20:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: Although presumably there will be 3.01 and 3.02 releases so those branches aren't *quite* as orphaned as 2.32 yet :) Yeah, 3.0.1 at least per the GNOME schedule, although we've been doing at least one additional stable update ever since