Re: [Evolution-hackers] ... and how camel should be
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 18:57 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 11:06 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: Imagine spastic users that do nothing but scroll all day long at extremely rapid speeds .. multiply that with 10.000 such users, and you still wouldn't have any problems at all. Even for single-user, disk-summary-branch was slower than the current in-memory implementation. Which is of course nothing but pure logic. Memory will always be faster. But also more expensive. Using to much memory makes evolution less scalable. I really don't think the message IDs are the main source of bloat in Evo. For starters, how about making glib use a sane thread stack size, like POSIX says you should, rather than counting on the default to be sane? Currently it defaults to RLIMIT_STACK which is usually 8MB per thread! Lee ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] ... and how camel should be
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 21:30 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: We can save some euros by fixing this flaw. We can make it possible to give poor children a very good E-mail client that uses camel. Is it still not worth fixing? I strongly disagree. Yes it is worth fixing, sorry for not reading your proposal thoroughly. Lee ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Re: UI fixes and GNOME 2.14 timeline (was: Re: [Evolution] Error dialogs steal focus)
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 09:34 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: hmm :-) Im taking on these things. Ive got Johnny working on UI with me. We should be doing a lot of fixes. We probably, can fix as much as issues as we can. Probably, in the wiki, we can list some of must fixes and we can go based on that as well. (Also cross posted on purpose) Please, PLEASE increase http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255303 to MUSTFIX priority ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Re: UI fixes and GNOME 2.14 timeline (was: Re: [Evolution] Error dialogs steal focus)
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 09:48 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 14:49 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 09:34 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: hmm :-) Im taking on these things. Ive got Johnny working on UI with me. We should be doing a lot of fixes. We probably, can fix as much as issues as we can. Probably, in the wiki, we can list some of must fixes and we can go based on that as well. (Also cross posted on purpose) Please, PLEASE increase http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255303 to MUSTFIX priority lee, i can see this working in my mail box and a workaround is applied, if i read the bug right. But it could be possible that some scenario is left. I know, I saw that in the code and the changelog but nevertheless it's definitely still broken here. It seems to be a problem if you sort your mail by date with the newest at the bottom. When I switch folders the scroll position keeps going back to the top. Lee ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
[Evolution-hackers] Status of bug #255303 (was bug #55303)
This bug is really driving me nuts: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=255303 The Changelog (grep for bug 55303 not 255303) implies that it's fixed or at least worked around. But I can definitely confirm that it's not - switching folders always causes the scroll position to be reset to the top of the folder. Any updates on this problem? What is the exact nature of the etable bug that Evolution claims to be working around? Lee ___ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolution-hackers@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
