So my 2 cents....
I would really like to get 1.0 out this week since I worry about it
dragging on. I also think we should stick to our policy of fixing
blocker bugs only at this stage. That being said, if the fixes are low
risk and Grant feels fine with them, I am supportive of adding them in.
It seems like the first 2 items are pretty trivial but I worry about
the CALDAV fix. For us to come out and publicize that I would want it
to be tested pretty thoroughly and we would have to spend some extra
time on this. I am pretty confident there will be a 1.1 soon and I
don't think it will be a missed opportunity to publicize this soon
after 1.0 when we have people's attention. So in summary, I guess I
would feel better putting this in 1.1.
Cheers,
Sheila
On Jul 30, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Jeffrey Harris wrote:
Hi Folks,
With Grant returning tomorrow, I wanted to start a conversation
about whether we should spin a 1.0rc2, and what bug fixes should go
in.
Sheila mentioned that she'd like Grant to make the decision about
what's safe to go in and what's not, which sounds good to me.
I do think we probably should spin an rc2, although I know we'd
really like to ship 1.0. Here are my nominations for fixes to put in:
Outlook fix - https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12262
Emails from Chandler with empty bodies are, in some variety of
Microsoft mail clients, displaying our theoretically hidden EIM
payload. This isn't a big deal but it's ugly, and the fix is a very
safe addition of a bit of whitespace.
URL fix - https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12256
The recent URL detection code didn't work with URLs that stretched
over multiple lines. My fix to find multi-line-URLs unfortunately
has a flaw: if a URL appears on the first line, all whitespace after
the item body is seen as matching that first line, which makes for a
disconcertingly large click target for that url (and makes it hard
to edit the body if it happens to contain just a url and nothing
else).
This is also only a minor annoyance, but a very safe fix.
Google CalDAV - https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12278
Google's first public stab at CalDAV support has a lot of
idiosyncrasies. Fortunately none of them are terribly onerous.
This isn't the safest change, but it mostly affects CalDAV code,
which clearly hasn't gotten heavy use lately or someone would've
pointed out it's been broken for recurrence for the last year!
I personally think we should do our damnedest to be the first
shipping CalDAV client that actually works with Google CalDAV.
Seems like there's a lot of buzz now, it sure would be nice to ride
it, alongside our 1.0 release. But it would also be reasonable to
delay the patch for a 1.0.1 or something like that.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
