On Mi, 2011-09-14 at 15:56 +0000, Woodhouse, David wrote: > On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 17:44 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > > Are there opinions either way? Anyone willing to give a release > > candidate some testing, in particular with an eye towards the more > > recent changes? Anyone urgently waiting for the final 1.2? > > Do we want to combine the ActiveSync libraries into a single > libeasclient.so before you release 1.2?
That's unrelated. SyncEvolution 1.2 has been in feature freeze as long as MeeGo 1.2 itself, I never meant to include ActiveSync in that upstream release. Right now the backend is in the master branch, while 1.2 branched off before ActiveSync, the non-recursive automake and D-Bus server reorg were merged. My goal is to release 1.3 with a much faster cycle than 1.2. A 1.2.99.1 could be released almost simultaneously with 1.2, if we want to announce ActiveSync together with 1.2. The reason for not including ActiveSync in 1.2 is that it doesn't meet my release criteria. In particular it is not part of the nightly testing. Adding that would have delayed 1.2 even further. > I was about to do that before > you moved the ActiveSync code out into the SyncEvolution repository, and > I thus no longer had commit privs to do the whole thing in one go... I didn't know about that library reorganization plan. Quite the opposite, as I recall it, you said something about the API being stable and asking when I wanted to move the backend. Oh well ;-) It doesn't have to be an atomic commit, so I'd say go ahead and let me know what needs to be changed in SyncEvolution, or send a patch. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
