On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 10:12 -0500, Martin Owens wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 13:45 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> > thus there's a problem with interoperability (at the moment)
> > and basically no use for it in corporate environments (read: with
> > Outlook users), thus definitely no high priority for me. Once you
> > have
> > a feature request filled you can also convince someone to work on
> > it
> > and provide patches.
>
> This is off-topic slightly, but isn't letting outlook define the
> feature set of evolution like letting IE 6 define the features of
> firefox?
Hi,
I definitely didn't want to sound that way, I swear. My idea behind the
mentioning of the Outlook was rather meant to be an example of other
client which does not have it (yet), but many people are still using
it. The thing is that the current man power on the evolution(-data-
server) is very limited, thus it's better to focus on things affecting
majority, rather than minority, of the users (that's a subjective
measure, I'm sorry).
That's the reason why I mentioned that patches are welcome, because I'm
not against the idea, I'd only prefer to review patches, than work on
it myself.
Bye,
Milan
_______________________________________________
evolution-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
