Please don't drop me from Cc when replying to my messages. See http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 10:30 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote: > Hi everyone, > > On Thursday 05 August 2010 David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:22 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote: > > > Now, I would like to know how we should deal with the issue. We (the > > > evolution-kolab developers) could patch the 2.30 version of IMAPX only to > > > get things running. In this case, would our additions be pulled > > > upstream? > > [...] > > I would strongly recommend that you do it in the development branch > > first, then we can backport it to gnome-2-30. > > I've been backporting most IMAPX changes from master to the 2.30 branch; > > I see no particular reason why we shouldn't backport METADATA support > > too, as long as you're careful not to add new user-visible strings that > > would need translation. > > Okay, let's say, we will patch upstream IMAPX to support RFC5464. The patch > gets reviewed, and after being polished it will (hopefully :-) be accepted in > upstream. > > How long do you think it would take you to backport such a patch to 2.30, > assuming we heed to the aforementioned implementation recommendations? Just to clarify -- I would expect you to do the backport yourself. When I said I've been backporting most IMAPX changes from master to 2.30... that's because I'd been making most of them. I wasn't volunteering to backport *your* changes too. :) It shouldn't be that hard. Probably even less than a day -- I suspect Chen was a little pessimistic in his estimate. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre david.woodho...@intel.com Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers