Re: Outstanding Evolution 2.0.0 Patches

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Fri, 2004-09-10 at 14:04 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
> This is a bit tricky to track because the evolution-patches mailing list
> has had intermittent problems, but as far as I know we have the
> following patches waiting on approval from the release team
> 
> 65172/63170/61140
> -dobey's documentation patch covers these plus updates all the docs, it
> touch the code in 1 or 2 spots to load the correct doc book file,
> otherwise it makes no code changes
> -been approved by me with one minor change

I didn't really get satisfactory answers to my questions about this. It
seems very late to be integrating large structural documentation changes
at this point, if that's what it is. But if you think it's minor and you
approve it, then here's 1 of 2 r-t approvals, because I know you worry
enough.

> 17338
> -not strictly necessary for 2.0.0 but really good to have
> -peer approved
> -needs r-t and i18n approval

This has had i18n approval from Christian Rose, and the r-t defer to the
i18n team for string freeze breaks. Please go ahead.

> 57443
> -second version of this peer approved
> -this gets us back to the 1.4 behaviour

This has been approved by the r-t.

> 64974
> -this is a ui breakage but a rather bad regression
> -waiting for r-t approval and peer review

I see lots of discussion that's been CCed to us, but I don't know
exactly what the r-t being asked to approve.

> 65448
> -we've pulled this from the 2.0.0 list, upon reflection we don't think
> its serious enough to block 2.0.0

OK.

> 62374
> -being peer reviewed currently
>
> 64800 
> -being peer reviewed

Therefore these are not on r-t's plate yet. We only look at patches that
have been approved by maintainers, and we don't pretend to be qualified
to give a maintainer's approval.

> There are two other ones we are looking at:
> 63894 (we cannot duplicate this however, unlikely to happen)

Ditto.

> undefining the #DEVELOPMENT define to turn off the "unstable version"
> development warning
> 
> As frederic suggested in irc for future evolution releases we'll
> probably do the peer review first and then forward it on to r-t.

That would make things a _lot_ easier for us and you. Thanks.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com