Re: Proposed: evolution

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 13:04 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <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.
for which there is already a patch :)


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