Hi David,

On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:07:38PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Personally, no. I'd rather ignore MAPI completely and get on with the
> implementation of evolution-ews.

Understandable, though as we've discussed on IRC we don't really have
the option of using that here, at least for another couple quarters.

> 
> >  I have quite the patch queue (maybe 10-20 patches) that I'm managing
> > locally for various backported fixes there.
> 
> Sounds like you would be in a good position to do it though.

Because I'm not a gnome dev, I (a) don't have push access, and (b)
am a bit hesitant to go against Milan's wishes, since he's the dev
who is primarily keeping things up for -mapi and has made his stance
pretty clear.  I only brought it up because it seemed like there might
be a change in that stance, and if so I'd be happy to share my currently
unshared fixes in .32.

Then again, now that 3.0 is released I may try again to get something
rolled together based on that since there are already a number of api
breaks making backports difficult for .32, and it seems there are lots
more in the pipe for 3.1.


        sean
_______________________________________________
evolution-hackers mailing list
evolution-hackers@gnome.org
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

Reply via email to