On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 14:16 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> And now I've heard (not officially) that Natty, which (as I understand
> it) will contain Gnome 3 as the base version, will ship with Evolution
> 2.32!!
Natty won't be based on Gnome3 according to this
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-
Last year I expressed concern over the fact that Ubuntu was leaving
behind Evolution in Lucid (that is, shipping Gnome 2.30 but leaving
Evolution alone back at 2.28). The explanation at that time was that
the change from Evo 2.28 to 2.30 involved a lot of significant rework
(which it did) and that
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Jan Claeys wrote:
> How will you revert all people's configuration & data (e.g. files
> created with an incompatible new file format)?
Where the upgrade to the new format is done by dpkg, we could add
downgrade scripts as well as upgrade scripts. As for new files,
> Ubuntu has been bitten by upgrading to new versions which were rewritten
> in the past and we have learnt, the decision has been made to stay on a
> version which is not perfect but that we know about rather running to
> use a rewrite in the risk of being stucked with something not ready
> qualit
Op woensdag 10-03-2010 om 02:50 uur [tijdzone +0800], schreef John
McCabe-Dansted:
> Is is what is unsupported. I understand that deb say how to upgrade
> you configuration etc. to the new versions, but don't know how to
> downgrade.
>
> I understand that supporting downgrade could double the work
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:28, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Evolution & Ubuntu 10.04 LTS
>> From: Sebastien Bacher
>> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:02:32 +0100
>> To: ubuntu-devel-disc...@lists.ubuntu.com
>>
>
>> Ubuntu has been bit
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Patrick Goetz wrote:
> Journal, lwn.net, and breathless reviews across the blogosphere. Users
> start clamoring for the features of gumptacular 2.0, not knowing how
> they ever lived without them. So,
>
> apt-get install gumptacular/ubuntu-experimental
Apt-ge
> Subject: Re: Evolution & Ubuntu 10.04 LTS
> From:Sebastien Bacher
> Date:Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:02:32 +0100
> To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
>
> Ubuntu has been bitten by upgrading to new versions which were rewritten
> in the past and we have
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:02 +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
There are plenty of stability problems with 2.28; I subscribe to the Evo
mailing lists and people are constantly posting about this or that
database corruption, missing mail, etc. etc. (note this is with standard
IMAP or POP support, not E
Le vendredi 05 mars 2010 à 08:41 -0500, Paul Smith a écrit :
> However, I don't see any problems and I've been building Evo 2.29.x
> from the latest git source every few days and using it "in anger" on
> all of my systems for daily email (and I get/send a LOT of email),
> with both IMAP and MAPI, f
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 17:17 +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> The current version of evolution is not broken and probably not over
> an unstable version which got some much rewrital and so few testing.
Sorry, but that's wrong: 2.28 is unquestionably broken. To quote you,
"Glad that it works for yo
Le vendredi 05 mars 2010 à 08:41 -0500, Paul Smith a écrit :
> Does Ubuntu really want to get stuck with broken
> Evo for the entirety of the LTS?
Hi,
The current version of evolution is not broken and probably not over an
unstable version which got some much rewrital and so few testing. Glad
th
2010/3/5 Paul Smith :
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:23 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>> Well, as far as I have heard from developers, Staying with Evolution
>> 2.28 decision was made because 2.30 will have too big sweeping
>> changes, like D-BUS instead of Bonobo, etc. So it is too much for LTS.
>
>
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:23 +0200, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Well, as far as I have heard from developers, Staying with Evolution
> 2.28 decision was made because 2.30 will have too big sweeping
> changes, like D-BUS instead of Bonobo, etc. So it is too much for LTS.
What?!?! Is that really true
2010/3/5 Thomas ML Novin :
> Simple question: Won't Evolution 2.29/30 be in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS?
> DebianImportFreeze, UI Freeze are in effect but still only Evolution
> 2.28.3?
>
> I find it strange that the default mailer in Ubuntu lags behind.
Well, as far as I have heard from developers, Staying
Simple question: Won't Evolution 2.29/30 be in Ubuntu 10.04 LTS?
DebianImportFreeze, UI Freeze are in effect but still only Evolution
2.28.3?
I find it strange that the default mailer in Ubuntu lags behind.
Rgds//Thomas N
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu
16 matches
Mail list logo
