On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 10:03 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote: > W dniu 28.11.2011 17:52, Julian Sikorski pisze: > > W dniu 28.11.2011 17:32, Bill Nottingham pisze: > >> Julian Sikorski (belegdol@xxxxxxxxx) said: > >>> Dear Fedorians, > >>> > >>> goffice-0.9.0 was released recently, along with new gnumeric [1,2]. What > >>> is your opinion on pushing the update to rawhide ASAP? To the best of my > >>> knowledge stable goffice 0.10 and gnumeric 1.12 should be out by the > >>> time Fedora 17 ships, so putting this into rawhide now would allow for > >>> plenty of time to iron out any potential problems. Missing the alpha > >>> change deadline [3] most likely means we need to wait until Fedora 18. > >> > >> Is it relatively API stable? > >> > >> Bill > > I asked Jean Brefort, one of goffice developers: > > > > <belegdol> hi jean, I got asked if goffice is relatively api-stable > > <jean> not yet > > <jean> but I'd say mostly > > <belegdol> may i quote you on that? > > <jean> we intend to add placehoders for more members on exported classes > > <jean> of course, you can quote me > > > > Regards, > > Julian > I am going to go ahead and commit this. In case packages cannot be fixed > in time, we can always introduce compat-goffice. > > Julian I realize that this is a bit late, but would you please file a Feature page on goffice 0.10? This seems like a pretty noteworthy upgrade. It's worth having it mentioned prominently in the release notes and talking points. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Proposals
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
