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 firstname.lastname@example.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers