Re: Proposed: evolution

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Sander Vesik">

> > None of this is intended to be a get-out-of-jail free card for Evolution
> > in the future. If anything, it means Evo will have much higher
> > expectations and attention in the next release process.
> 
> Not at all - its not just a "get out of jail" card, its a "get out of jail
> and never go back as long as you continue to be really good at ignoring
> everything you are told" card. 

Sander, you've just said the absolute opposite of what I've said above. This
is not helpful unless you're willing to back it up. Thus far, I've made it
very clear that the minor concessions we could be comfortable with for Evo
in 2.8 would *absolutely not* continue to exist in the future -> why do you
think that's not the case?

> > I, for one, intend to put Evolution under the microscope for 2.10. :-)
> 
> You wouldn't want to name say three reasons why this will give better results than
> say the "we want evolution to be in gnome 2.8 not 2.6 so we can fix it to comply
> with gnome requirements" thing the evolution team said about six months ago? Because
> right now, not only is evolution still in need of a long list of special waivers but
> also preceicely the same issues coming up as were then they are also basicly getting
> pushed off into teh indefintae future precicely the same way as back then - 

A long list of special waivers? Thus far it's:

  * Evolution does not use the GTK+ 2.4 FileChooser, but the developers have
    noted that they are 100% willing to take a nicely #ifdefed patch before
    the 2.8 release.

  * Evolution's bugs are not in GNOME's bugzilla, and it would require quite
    a large chunk of integration work to make this happen, despite a stated
    desire that everyone (including the Evolution team) want it to happen.
    Our bugmaster feels that it's not a blocker for 2.8, but is working to
    make it happen ASAP.

That is *NOT* a long list, we know where the issues are, everyone's agreeing
on what we need to do, and there are practical solutions on the way.

There's also the unresolved copyright assignment question, but it's just
that: unresolved.

> What sense does it make to put a module into teh desktop that not just
> doesn't meet the same requirements that are expected from others but
> actually actively resists making such chanegs?

The Evolution team have *at no time* actively resisted any changes involved
in becoming a first-class member of the GNOME Desktop. What you've said is
fundamentally incorrect, and I would say, unfair.

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2005: Canberra, Australia                http://linux.conf.au/
 
                W.O.R.K: Weekend Over, Resume the Killings.