Re: new modules consensus

On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 14:06 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>  - libsoup
>    gal
>    gtkhtml
>    evolution-data-server
>    evolution
>    evolution-exchange
>      (No make sense to considering any of these independently, right?)
>      Discussion on i18n issues, lots of strings, big database of strings
>      for Location names and the like. Seems that these issues have been 
>      greatly reduced, people are relatively happy and the Evolution team
>      work well with the i18n team on such issues.
>      People would like to see Evolution move to GNOME bugzilla, but 
>      there is a recognition that it is a big task. This should happen,
>      though, and the sooner the better but no-one seems to consider a
>      blocker.

This is being worked on, but as mentioned earlier we can't do it in time
for 2.8.

>      Some discussion on removing the Evolution "brand" from the 
>      interface, what its menu entry should be and the like ... The
>      debate seemed to peter out with no agreement, but it also didn't
>      look like an issue which would block Evolution's acceptance.

We removed the use of "Ximian Evolution" every where.  If there needs to
be generic menu entries, we can do that.

>      Evolution 1.5 doesn't use the new fileselector because it doesn't 
>      want to depend on GTK+ 2.4. There was discussion about adding a 
>      #ifdef patch and the Evolution team was happy to have that happen
>      so long as someone was willing to do the work. However, that
>      doesn't seem to have happened. I think it was obvious that most
>      people found this a huge disappointment, but that most were willing
>      to accept it so long as it is indicative of a trend for the future.

Not quite right, Carlos has done the work (thanks), we've had a few
issues with the patch, we'll have it in for the next release on Monday.

JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>
Novell, Inc.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]