>>> On 10/18/2010 at 07:01 PM, in message <1287408711.3126.11.ca...@localhost.localdomain>, Matthew Barnes <mbar...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 12:10 +0530, chen wrote: > > The other solution was to maintain all exchange providers in a single > > package, merging evolution-exchange, evolution-ews and evolution-mapi > > into a single package. Other collaboration providers like > > evolution-groupwise and evolution-kolab (yet to be upstreamed) will > > remain as separate packages. > > If we -have- to glob providers together I would prefer the alternate > solution: merge all the Exchange providers into one git module, break > GroupWise out from E-D-S into it's own git module, and leave the rest > alone. > > This is not unlike the recent gnome-games debate on desktop-devel-list, > except that we already have shared libraries for the common parts with > fairly stable APIs (libebook, libecal, etc.). > > Jon's comments on the gnome-games issue reflect my own for this one: > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2010-October/msg00049.html > >
I prefer not to have every provider in its own module. If we make changes in the baseclass, it will be ignored and won't go into unmaintained providers. More providers translates to more work for packagers downstream and also during the release time for maintainers as well, with not much benefits. Just my 2 cents. Sankar _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
