Re: [gene-pool] Outstanding Evolution 2.0.0 Patches

[Sivaiah Nallagatla <snallagatla novell com>]

This Change is never  committed for gnome2.8 branch so should not be a
problem for 2.0, and removed from HEAD now .

Thanks,
Siva 
On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 13:58 -0700, Chris Toshok wrote:
> Just checked the ChangeLog, e-book-backend-ldap.c, and the evo-patches
> list, and can't find evidence that this change:
> 
> > 2004-09-06  Sivaiah Nallagatla <snallagatla novell com>
> >                                                                                 
> >         * backends/ldap/e-book-backend-ldap.c : Update
> >         the ldap attribute names for calendar ui and free busy uri
> >         fileds to match with what is present in evolutionPerson.schema
> 
> was backed out (or even sent to the list for approval).  This absolutely
> has to happen before we ship 2.0.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 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
> > 
> > 17338
> > -not strictly necessary for 2.0.0 but really good to have
> > -peer approved
> > -needs r-t and i18n approval
> > 
> > 57443
> > -second version of this peer approved
> > -this gets us back to the 1.4 behaviour
> > 
> > 64974
> > -this is a ui breakage but a rather bad regression
> > -waiting for r-t approval and peer review
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 62374
> > -being peer reviewed currently
> > 
> > 64800 
> > -being peer reviewed
> > 
> > There are two other ones we are looking at:
> > 63894 (we cannot duplicate this however, unlikely to happen)
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > -JP
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-i18n mailing list
> gnome-i18n gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n