On Sunday 16 May 2010 13:25:28 Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Sunday 16 May 2010, Lindsay Mathieson wrote: > > On Sun, 16 May 2010 05:19:49 am Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > > All you will lose is some meta data (e.g. the state of the > > > messages). Another advantage of limiting the migration to the meta > > > data (e.g. the information in KMail's index files) is that there > > > is less potential for migration errors. > > > > That's good to know, sounds reasonable. > > > > How about the config data? Account setup etc. > > Config data is the real problem. It is likely to get lost on the > migration. As this has always been the case with almost all upgrades of > KDE PIM (e.g. when the configuration of the sending accounts was moved > from kmailrc to another file or when the configuration of the identities > was moved from kmailrc to another file) I don't see why we should handle > this differently for this upgrade. A possible solution would be to leave > kmailrc untouched and use kmail2rc for KMail 2, but I'm not sure it's > worth doing so.
What is so hard about migrating config data? At least the account setup doesn't look too complicated to the naive me. I think it would produce a lot of "negative goodwill" to just lose the account data people have set up. The migration should be as transparant as possible, otherwise I fear we'll face serious backlash with the migration. If that's not achievable in the 4.5 timeframe, maybe we should start thinking about 4.6 instead? -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9 _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
