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 649854 - Backport a number of patches from git master (2.91.x) to 2.32.x branch
Backport a number of patches from git master (2.91.x) to 2.32.x branch
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
2.32.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
: 649855 649857 649858 649859 649860 649861 649862 649863 649864 649865 649866 649867 649868 649870 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2011-05-10 07:27 UTC by Pacho Ramos
Modified: 2013-03-27 09:53 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
01-no_recipient_meetings.patch (1.69 KB, patch)
2011-05-10 07:27 UTC, Pacho Ramos
none Details | Review

Description Pacho Ramos 2011-05-10 07:27:32 UTC
Created attachment 187549 [details] [review]
01-no_recipient_meetings.patch

We are using it with 2.32 without problems, please commit to 2.32 branch also. Thanks
Comment 1 André Klapper 2011-05-10 11:40:24 UTC
Who is "we"?
Comment 2 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:24:38 UTC
Hi Pacho, are you kidding me? I see about 15 bugs with 0 information in them. If you want to ask for something like backport then contact David Woodhouse, directly, he's maintaining the gnome-2-32 branches now (mostly). Why to spam bugzilla with what was dealt with it already? Or if you really want to, then one bug with list of links to patches/commits or something. I do not know what to do with all your bugs. I will mark them as a duplicates of this, I think.
Comment 3 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:46:22 UTC
*** Bug 649855 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:46:37 UTC
*** Bug 649857 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:46:55 UTC
*** Bug 649858 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:47:10 UTC
*** Bug 649859 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 7 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:47:28 UTC
*** Bug 649860 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:47:56 UTC
*** Bug 649861 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 9 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:48:06 UTC
*** Bug 649862 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 10 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:48:27 UTC
*** Bug 649863 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 11 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:48:44 UTC
*** Bug 649864 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:48:54 UTC
*** Bug 649865 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:49:10 UTC
*** Bug 649866 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 14 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:49:24 UTC
*** Bug 649867 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 15 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:49:36 UTC
*** Bug 649868 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 16 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:49:50 UTC
*** Bug 649870 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 17 Milan Crha 2011-05-11 14:51:50 UTC
OK, so the above duplicates contain other patches Pacho filled into the bugzilla and would liek to have them committed into gnome-2-32 branches.
Comment 18 David Woodhouse 2011-05-11 15:13:26 UTC
Thanks, Milan. As I type this one-handed with a sleeping baby on my shoulder, I really don't relish trying to make sense of that lot.

A list of commits that I can pull in with 'git cherry-pick -x' would be nice. Or a tested git tree in which that was already done, and the backport conflicts (minimally) resolved, would be better...
Comment 19 Milan Crha 2011-05-12 08:07:10 UTC
Please consider also commits from bug #646117 comment #9, as was asked for in bug #645074 comment #4. Thanks.
Comment 20 Pacho Ramos 2011-05-12 08:59:16 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Who is "we"?

I am a gnome maintainer on Gentoo

(In reply to comment #2)
> Hi Pacho, are you kidding me? I see about 15 bugs with 0 information in them.
> If you want to ask for something like backport then contact David Woodhouse,
> directly, he's maintaining the gnome-2-32 branches now (mostly). Why to spam
> bugzilla with what was dealt with it already? Or if you really want to, then
> one bug with list of links to patches/commits or something. I do not know what
> to do with all your bugs. I will mark them as a duplicates of this, I think.

No, I am not kidding you and I am really sorry for this. I thought was more appropriate to report them splitted to let us discuss for every patch if needed since they are different. I also didn't know who was maintaining gnome-2.32 branch.

Again, sorry a lot, it wasn't my intention to make you angry :-(
Comment 21 Milan Crha 2011-05-12 09:23:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #20)
> Again, sorry a lot, it wasn't my intention to make you angry :-(

That's OK, I'm not that angry, it was rather kind of surprise.
Comment 22 Pacho Ramos 2011-06-03 15:15:42 UTC
List of commits:
d5453070876d5992b93973250cb01a949e119828
30427e119ae1d6b26fb92ee5e3e2abe614c7668e
f5562e96973341002675d504ab8245cd9ec3f3f4
5549b3311ff09e4ea83eeedd5e48e16e5530a0d3
750abd6bed42e55a26b972102132bca4e57473dd
0efc5f6217100ce0b35404137629642346b2d51a
7ddb3931b153c95641712a1e79732a359311bcec
84e2609c80f84392138d5d534d2486fa877173c5
fb1874306786d0ef9527463bfed870dc07915084
1a7b4d481cd322f901808461d831bfa40f346922
4b58f113f8d5399f103db891f0faa2a0deae7450
d132f8fd1c265b473954ab60d8b16db1f5aa04a8
06ba0287d7ccc395104f0dc77f71bd825d0558db
098a7abf652e5a1596801c466f0de0fb656b69c9
7215cf088f73cfa61e877a83fa0fdd4227095725
ca553fcb264a09b75b406d2eaed1942dc0af6f50
Comment 23 Pacho Ramos 2011-06-15 19:04:32 UTC
Could these patches be commited to 2.32 before releasing a 2.32.4 version? It would allow us to drop a lot of patches downstream. Thanks a lot
Comment 24 André Klapper 2013-03-27 09:53:43 UTC
(In reply to comment #23)
> Could these patches be commited to 2.32 before releasing a 2.32.4 version? It
> would allow us to drop a lot of patches downstream. Thanks a lot

I assume that's pretty obsolete now. Closing as WONTFIX.