After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 644470 - Empathy needs to catch up with Folks interface name changes (API/ABI breaks)
Empathy needs to catch up with Folks interface name changes (API/ABI breaks)
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: empathy
Classification: Core
Component: Meta Contacts
2.91.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: empathy-maint
Depends on: 642513
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-03-11 05:10 UTC by Travis Reitter
Modified: 2011-08-29 10:12 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Attachments
Update for Folks API breaks (53.07 KB, patch)
2011-03-11 06:20 UTC, Travis Reitter 		reviewed Details | Review

Description Travis Reitter 2011-03-11 05:10:02 UTC 
Folks will merge the changes from bug #642513 and create a new 0.4.x stable branch shortly.

There are some API/ABI breaks that we're planning to get in before the new branch. The biggest one is in the bug mentioned above.
Comment 1 Travis Reitter 2011-03-11 06:20:41 UTC 
Created attachment 183118 [details] [review]
Update for Folks API breaks

Patches from branch:

http://git.collabora.co.uk/?p=user/treitter/empathy.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/bgo642513-interface-names
Comment 2 Guillaume Desmottes 2011-03-11 13:43:03 UTC 
Review of attachment 183118 [details] [review]:

Don't forget to update jhbuild as well.

::: configure.ac
@@ +33,2 @@
 # Hardp deps
+FOLKS_REQUIRED=0.3.6.1

Shouldn't it be 0.3.6?
Comment 3 Travis Reitter 2011-03-11 16:56:15 UTC 
(In reply to comment #2)
> Review of attachment 183118 [details] [review]:
> 
> Don't forget to update jhbuild as well.

Will do.

> ::: configure.ac
> @@ +33,2 @@
>  # Hardp deps
> +FOLKS_REQUIRED=0.3.6.1
> 
> Shouldn't it be 0.3.6?

It should be "next real release of Folks" (which will be 0.3.7, or, likely, 0.4.0). We use nano numbers to indicate it's in git.

At any rate, I'll bump it to the next real release number before merging.

Should I take this as a "merge after release"?
Comment 4 Guillaume Desmottes 2011-03-14 09:07:52 UTC 
(In reply to comment #3)

> Should I take this as a "merge after release"?

yep.
Comment 5 Guillaume Desmottes 2011-03-21 11:02:46 UTC 
This has been merged.