2010/3/5 Paul Smith <[email protected]>: > 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? This is the first I've heard of this! > Evo 2.30 is an integral part of Gnome 2.30--it's bogus to try to leave > it behind. > > Evolution is at the same time one of the most important applications for > deployment of Linux in a typical corporate environment (read: > Exchange-based), and also one of the most problematic historically. > That means we need to push _forward_, though, not hang back. There are > real problems with 2.28: I can't believe anyone would prefer to stay > with that over 2.30 regardless of LTS. > > Not all those problems are fixed in 2.30 but the Exchange MAPI support > in 2.29 is far ahead of 2.28, and the new capabilities added in > 2.29/2.30 for other backends solve lots of bugs and clean up all kinds > of issues. Plus, if Ubuntu moves to 2.30 they will get the advantage of > fixes made for 2.30.1, 2.30.2, etc. 2.28.x will be dead (is already > dead, from Gnome's perspective) and backporting changes across that > barrier will be extremely difficult for exactly the reasons quoted above > (sweeping changes). Does Ubuntu really want to get stuck with broken > Evo for the entirety of the LTS? > > > Have the decision makers been following the development lists and trying > the new version? Surely they must have some factual basis for such a > decision, in terms of experienced instability, rather than just running > away from the bullet list of changes. 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, for the last 3 months > or so. It works MUCH better than 2.28.
MAPI changes was also a reason I pitched this question why 2.30 is not in Lucid. However, I have learned to respect Ubuntu dev decisions - they see a bigger picture, support costs, etc. I think best solution is to provide PPA with regular updates for Lucid. I will try. Who knows, maybe backport will be a answer. Cheers, Peter. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
