I am of the opinion that we should remove code from gajim if we know that it is not fully functional.
Removing should be preferred over disabling it because we can never be sure that there aren't any uncaught side effects. It may also happen that some user enable it and report bugs in other areas (yes, code is that coupled) and we are unable to easily reproduce it. After removal the patches could be applied to separate branches. Users who really want it can use it and we make sure that the patch doesn't get lost. On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 12:55 +0200, Jonathan Schleifer wrote: > Stephan Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > When I look at gajim, I see the following broken windows: > > - OSX integration > > It's totally broken and I'm for reverting it and doing it from scratch. See above. > > > - OTR-Encryption > > We can keep that in trunk and just remove the line that loads the OTR > module before release. It's possible that we get it fixed, but I really > doubt it, See explanation above. > > - GPG-Encryption > > What's broken about GPG? Never had any issues with it. I was not precise enough here. It is working but the implementation is very complex, so no refactoring for 0.12 is planned. > But you forgot the biggest breakage: Session centric. I am OK with session centric and think we should definitely keep it. Things are shaping up and I haven't seen any big breakage in the last days. (Even unit tests are coming). Best Regards, steve-e
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Gajim-devel mailing list Gajimfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.gajim.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/gajim-devel