FFe: migrate to ibus-1.3 series
zhengpeng-hou at ubuntu.com
Thu Sep 2 05:25:36 BST 2010
I have to raise this up once again. A memory leak has been found in lucid
Jonathan Riddell approached me yesterday, discussed a SRU, I'd prefer we
SRU the whole ibus and related IME, which can provide end users better UX,
especially lucid is a LTS release.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Peng Huang <shawn.p.huang at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Steve Langasek,
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Steve Langasek <
> steve.langasek at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> Hi Zhengpeng,
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 05:07:31PM +0800, Zhengpeng Hou wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> > I'm sorry to bring this up at almost the last stage of Lucid
>> > development cycle. Since Lucid will
>> > be another LTS, so I think I'd better to raise this up. IBus 1.3 has
>> > been released on 2010-03-21, just
>> > one week ago, and most of those packages have been uploaded to Debian
>> > experimental already, which
>> > means that those in experimental have been built and installed
>> > I have discussed with upstream on this as well, Peng Huang also
>> > recommended to use ibus-1.3 series for
>> > Lucid, upstream will focus on 1.3 series mostly, then if we still
>> > use 1.2 series in a LTS release, we'll have
>> > to backport any bug fix from 1.3 series.
>> > The majority changes in IBus 1.3 series as below, diff of Changelog
>> > attached for reference.
>> > 1 use floating IBusObject
>> > 2 support share one global engine in all applications
>> > 3 some ui improvements
>> > 4 bug fixes
>> > So I'd suggest to have ibus-1.3 pulled into Lucid from Debian
>> > experimental. Since this new upstream release
>> > will have abi transition, therefore I prefer to discuss this more
>> > before filing FFe.
>> > NB, Peng Huang might not be on this list, so if you can CC him, that
>> > would be great.
>> The first packaged release of ibus 1.2 was in June 2009; before that, the
>> 1.1 series only lasted from April 2009 to June 2009. Is there a reason to
>> expect that ibus 1.3 will be developed for a longer period of time than
>> or 1.2 was? If not, the backport argument doesn't carry much weight with
>> me: yes, it will be easier to backport bug fixes, but only for a short
>> time; and because 1.3 is so fresh, there is much more chance that we will
>> *need* to backport fixes!
> From 1.2 to 1.3, many low level C interfaces have been updated (using the
> floating IBusObject). It cause most of C source files been changed. I think
> back porting fixes in C code between 1.3 and 1.2 will be more hard. And 1.3
> includes the new feature sharing the global engine. It is asked by many
> users. So if ubuntu could uses 1.3, it will be better.
> BTW, currently all IME development is focus on 1.3 too. So I think ubuntu
> will get more benefit, if it use the ibus-1.3. And it is good for upstream
> too. it could reduce issues reported for old ibus releases in upstream, and
> we could be more concentrative on 1.3 bug fixing and future version
> development. And for us IME developers, they does not need upgrade ibus to
> 1.3 in ubuntu any more.
> Wish ubuntu will use the new release. Thanks.
> Peng Huang
>> Unless you can point to specific, high-severity problems with ibus 1.2
>> would be fixed by moving to 1.3, I would nack this.
>> Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
>> Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
>> Ubuntu Developer
>> slangasek at ubuntu.com
>> vorlon at debian.org
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-devel