Re: Evolution thoughts for GNOME 3.0
- From: Srinivasa Ragavan <sragavan novell com>
- To: Andre Klapper <ak-47 gmx net>
- Cc: release-team <release-team gnome org>, chen <pchenthill novell com>, Matthew Barnes <mbarnes redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Evolution thoughts for GNOME 3.0
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:09:38 +0530
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 02:21 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 17.06.2009, 23:50 +0530 schrieb Srinivasa Ragavan:
> > - Continue Evolution 2.26 as stable series till 3.0 comes out.
> > - Treat Evolution 2.28 as a intermediate milestone for GNOME/Evolution
> > 3.0
> > - Continue releasing Evolution 2.26.x (Evolution 2.26.5/6/7...) series
> > as stable releases for GNOME 2.28.1/2/3 instead of releasing Evolution
> > 2.28.1/2/3.
> You might call the stable Evolution releases "2.28.x" but create them
> from the gnome-2-26 branch. On the other hand that is confusing if you
> were up to continue calling the unstable series for 3.0 "2.27.x".
Once we enter 2.29.x schedule, we 'll name it accordingly.
> So we ship e.g. Evolution 2.26.6/.7 for GNOME 2.28.1/.2?
> r-t: Having GNOME releases in mind I wonder which release suite an
> Evolution 2.27.13 release would be part of in the last weeks of GNOME
> 2.27.x - I don't think we should include a 2.27.13 Evolution release in
> e.g. GNOME 2.27.92. People expect components of a release candidate (two
> weeks before a major release) to be way more stable than Evolution
> 2.27.13 at that time (6 months before a major release).
> So how to ensure testing of the continued unstable branch in the last
> weeks before 2.28.0?
Nice point. I think we can afford the ~two week gap. Or we can have both
stable (2.26.x) & unstable (2.27.x) tarballs part of the release. Let
people choose what they want to play with and ship on.
> r-t could think of an additional 2.29.0 release (shipping all modules
> that have branched for gnome-3-0 already before 2.28 release) maybe one
> week before 2.28.0?
> > 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.
> > Thoughts on this?
> After some bad experiences with kill-summary bugs in 2.24.x I agree with
> your proposal to continue 2.27.x for the next 9 months and kind of drop
Precisely, you got it. I really want to avoid another disk summary like
Thanks Andre for the understanding :-)
> > Secondly, Evolution uses GNOME canvas in and around every UI. I wanted
> > to know the future direction/migration path, haven't seen one before.
> > Its gonna be another painful task like deprecating bonobo with in
> > Evolution :/. I would like to vote against this, if there is a
> > possibility.
> I still have not found out when and why libgnomecanvas was deprecated by
> the release-team. Maybe someone remembers?
> According to http://www.gnome.org/~fpeters/299.html Evolution, planner
> and gthumb use libgnomecanvas.
I really need the migration path/future plans for this. It will be one
thing, that touches every bit of Evolution. Message list, calendar view,
addressbook etc.. everything uses GNOME Canvas. I would be happy to
continue with gnome-canvas, if possible.
] [Thread Prev