Le mercredi 19 mars 2014 à 13:37 +0000, Simon McVittie a écrit : > When we have consensus, we should contact [email protected] as > well as this list, like Guillaume did last time.
I would advice to stay conservative this cycle and use the same branch than for GNOME 3.10. We (upstream) should make sure to backport important fixes into latest stable branches though. > The tl;dr version is that I'm proposing: > > telepathy-glib: new 0.24.x > telepathy-idle: keep 0.2.x, or new 0.3.x? (see below) > telepathy-logger: keep 0.8.x, or new 0.10.x? (see below) > > telepathy-mission-control: keep 5.16.x > telepathy-gabble: keep 0.18.x > telepathy-salut: keep 0.8.x > telepathy-rakia: keep 0.8.x > telepathy-haze: keep 0.8.x > telepathy-farstream: keep 0.6.x Any particular reason to bump telepathy-glib to 0.24.x if distro keeps CMs requiring only 0.22 ? Maybe Empathy 3.12 already depends on 0.24 ? Note that currently Ubuntu 14.04 LTS is shipping Empathy 3.8 and telepathy-glib 0.22. So if we have strong reasons to upgrade to newer version we should convince Ubuntu ASAP, otherwise I would suggest other distros to align. I really think it is important for everyone if major distros align on the same stable branches, that gives a signal to upstream that we should give special care at backporting important stuff into specific versions. > The future > ========== > > I would like to have Telepathy 1.0 stable well before GNOME 3.14 > freezes; that hopefully means these will be the last round of Telepathy > 0.x stable releases (although we might do a telepathy-glib 0.26 or > telepathy-mission-control 5.18 if necessary). +1 for targeting tp1.0 for GNOME 3.14, but if for any reason we can't make it happen early in the cycle, we should postpone. > The major things left to do are: > > * merge my port to GDBus, or decide not to It's not strictly release blocker, but since the code is already there, it works, and I already reviewed part of it, it would be sad to not have it. > * implement MC 5 account import in MC 6 That's release blocker for sure. > * make TpClientFactory the top-level object? I'm not considering this release blocker, but still nice to have. I personally won't implement it, but I think Guillaume is doing it. So his call. > * start tracking the ABI properly Yes, release blocker. > I don't think the Names and redesigned Avatars interfaces should be > blockers for 1.0. They are not release blocker, and still have open questions IIRC. So it would be of course nice to have, but I think it won't make it. Also allowing for future dbus iface breaks is actually the whole point of tp1.0 interface versioning. Regards, Xavier Claessens. _______________________________________________ telepathy mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy
