Re: Evolution thoughts for GNOME 3.0

On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 23:50 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> I expect lot of rewrites, dbus port merge, bonobo deprecation (kill
> bonobo merge). etc. I don't think, Evolution 2.28 can be stable, unless
> I postpone these tasks which might merge late in 2.28 cycle to really
> 2.29.x. But postponing merges at times, doesn't really mean that it will
> finish in time, when the targets are relaxed/moved to 2.29.x I really
> wanted to take up these merges even though they are late, and go ahead
> for a stable 3.0. The main difference it makes is that, I can get over
> these tasks asap with out looking for a interim-stability series and aim
> good for a stable Evolution for GNOME 3.0. It gives a good window IMHO.

I'll add that with every major branch merge we have to allow sufficient
time to clean up the inevitable mess.  It's really hard to do this under
a string and UI freeze, or even the announcement period.

That leaves us with a relatively short time window per six-month cycle
to get these things in.  That's why, for example, I set 2.27.3 as a hard
deadline for merging the Bonobo removal in time for 2.28.  If I miss
that, which I will, we punt to 2.29.1.

As things stand, we simply have more merges lined up than we have merge
windows before GNOME 3.  So we need to destabilize things for a bit
longer than usual in order to meet all our 3.0 milestones in time.

Matthew Barnes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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