Re: Proposed: evolution

[Elijah Newren <newren math utah edu>]

Hi,

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, [iso-8859-1] Sander Vesik wrote:

<snip>

> > 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 -
>
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-January/msg00638.html
>
> 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
> shoudl start by proving they have any intention of being part of the
> desktop in some other aspect than just haveing evolution appear in teh
> modules list.

Pardon my ignorance, but I had a hard time finding the requirements for
inclusion in Gnome.  I found http://developer.gnome.org/gep/gep-10.html
via a Google search (I couldn't find any direct links to it from various
gnome.org sites that I could think of), but I don't know if this
document has since been followed by later revisions.

However, if that document still stands then usage of bugzilla.gnome.org
is not an actual requirement.  Yes it is encouraged, but considering
that one of the bugmasters, namely Andrew of the Pants, has already
stated that he's cool with the current situation, I see no reason for this
issue to block inclusion of Evolution.


Elijah