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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-26 Thread Matthew Barnes
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-26 Thread David Woodhouse
On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 07:38 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: * I think our policy toward stable branch maintenance could be a little more relaxed during the first half of a release cycle in terms of what we allow in. I don't know what that means exactly for us yet, but I have observed

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-24 Thread David Woodhouse
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-24 Thread David Woodhouse
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-24 Thread Milan Crha
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-24 Thread Paul Smith
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-24 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-24 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-24 Thread Milan Crha
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-24 Thread Milan Crha
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

[Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-23 Thread Matthew Barnes
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-23 Thread Sasa Ostrouska
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.

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-23 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-23 Thread Fabiano Fidêncio
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

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Reconsidering our release cycle

2013-07-23 Thread Fabiano Fidêncio
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