Re: version stability question

[Jack <ostroffjh sbcglobal net>]

Thanks.  That's about what I thought, but it helps to have it from the source.

Peter Bloomfield <peterbloomfield bellsouth net> wrote:

> Hi Jack!
>
> On 09/26/2014 11:54:42 AM Fri, Jack wrote:
> > On 2014.09.01 11:35, Jack wrote:
> > > Good morning,
> > >
> > > Gentoo is finally getting around to marking 2.5.1 as stable, but they are asking for confirmation that 
> > > 2.5.1 is really considered stable and not development:
> > >
> > >     Looks like 'master' branch is still the 2.4.x versions one:  https://git.gnome.org/browse/balsa/log/
> > >
> > >     Is 2.5.x considered as stable by upstream? (in general, even numbers are for development versions in 
> > > "gnome" stuff)
> > >
> > > Does git need some poking, and can I tell them it is sufficiently stable?
> >
> > Can anyone answer this?
>
> There's not much currently going on in either master or the gtk3 branch, which I guess means that 2.5.1 in 
> gtk3 is quite stable. It still fails to build in a git tree, because the address book editor still uses 
> deprecated API, but that wouldn't get in the way of a tarball build.
>
> BTW: Balsa doesn't subscribe to the odd/even convention, as far as I know, so the numbering is no reason to 
> view 2.5.1 as unstable.
>
> HTH!
>
> Peter