On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 09:37 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:

> I understand your concerns. 

> I haven't yet spoken Harish about this attempt. As you probably know
> he's on (or was on) vacation so I'm guessing we'll discuss this soon?
I am back :-)
> Perhaps we should address this at a next Evolution meeting?
Yes. Let us thrash it out this Wednesday (1000 UTC)
I will try to ensure all stakeholders (ksh, mailer guys ..) make it to
the meeting.

> because I'm not yet sure whether or not the Gecko HTML engine is
> desirable in Evolution.

Well, let us be open and evaluate it nevertheless. We would know, after
the analysis :-) 

> What I've done so far is the Prove Of Concept :-P
Yes. There are many gaps that still need to be fixed.
> Important for Harish to know is that replacing GtHTML with Gecko
> wouldn't be a one-person task. The entire team of Evolution developers
> will most likely one way or another touch or feel the differences. 
 As I had hinted to you earlier, Kaushal (the current gtkhtml
maintainer) would be your most valuable ally for both evaluating the
replacement as well as working on it.

I am biased of course, to the option of making it a bonobo component
(reimplement Editor.idl) in that it would be the least disruptive to the
rest of the code. 

Configure time selection would make me happier - so we could do the
'field-tests' with the safety net of falling back to gtkhtml editor
during the development releases.

But then lets see the show of hands on how many of us can throw in the
commitment to see it through.[1]

> Like
> you, Tor, who would have to port this to Win32.
> So it's good to discuss this :P
Tor/ srag , mostly.


[1] Kaushal, Philip has already provided his analysis including what he
sees as trouble spots in the task. Can you post your views too - so the
rest of the team is prepared for the meeting.

Evolution-hackers mailing list

Reply via email to