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