Thanks. That's about what I thought, but it helps to have it from the source.
Peter Bloomfield <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Jack! > >On 09/26/2014 11:54:42 AM Fri, Jack wrote: >> On 2014.09.01 11:35, Jack wrote: >>> Good morning, >>> >>> Gentoo is finally getting around to marking 2.5.1 as stable, but they are >>> asking for confirmation that 2.5.1 is really considered stable and not >>> development: >>> >>> Looks like 'master' branch is still the 2.4.x versions one: >>> https://git.gnome.org/browse/balsa/log/ >>> >>> Is 2.5.x considered as stable by upstream? (in general, even numbers >>> are for development versions in "gnome" stuff) >>> >>> Does git need some poking, and can I tell them it is sufficiently stable? >> >> Can anyone answer this? > >There's not much currently going on in either master or the gtk3 branch, which >I guess means that 2.5.1 in gtk3 is quite stable. It still fails to build in a >git tree, because the address book editor still uses deprecated API, but that >wouldn't get in the way of a tarball build. > >BTW: Balsa doesn't subscribe to the odd/even convention, as far as I know, so >the numbering is no reason to view 2.5.1 as unstable. > >HTH! > >Peter _______________________________________________ balsa-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/balsa-list
