The default local account in Evolution stores mail in the mbox format
located in ~/.evolution/mail/local. Each folder is stored in a separate file
named the same as the folder. Metadata, summary and indices are stored in
files starting with the folder name and .. The junk folder is not a proper
Google seem to be in the process of introducing IMAP support to GMail
[1]. Personally I think GMail offers an extremely attractive email
solution by now. Evolution does already support integration with GMail
via SMTP and POP, and now also via IMAP. In addition to following the
IMAP standards as
2007/5/31, Matthew Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
What version to start with? I'm on Debian GNU/Linux, which currently has
evo
2.6. I notice that's a bit dated (although I did see that a few months ago
some of the Debian packagers were
2007/5/31, Ross Boylan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 23:20 +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
2007/5/31, Matthew Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 07:58 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
What version to start with? I'm on Debian GNU/Linux, which currently
has evo
2.6
2007/5/30, Ross Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 07:59 +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
I posted some lines about improvements to the vCard parser, but it
seems like getting multi-megabyte attachments take some time to get
through to the mailing list. So I posted to my blog
Are there any changes in the data format between 2.6 and 2.10.1? Or
anything else that may cause trouble without installing 2.8 in
between?
We're considering to package 2.10.1 as a replacement for 2.6.3 in the
Debian distributions. If there are any possible upgrade problems, we'd
like to
2007/4/14, Matthew Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 16:51 +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
What happened to the gtkhtml API versioning before the GNOME 2.18
release? Seems like it was a mistake to do the bump in
http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/gtkhtml/trunk/configure.in?r1=8408r2
2007/4/2, Srinivasa Ragavan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 01:12 +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
I discovered a bottleneck for addressbook performance with large
addressbooks. Details at
http://n800evolution.blogspot.com/2007/04/libebook-scalability.html
Looks fine to commit
2007/4/2, Ross Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 09:03 +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
I'd also love to create scripts, code and test data to test
performance of some of the most important functions. Then we would be
able to track performance over time in a more scientific way
I discovered a bottleneck for addressbook performance with large
addressbooks. Details at
http://n800evolution.blogspot.com/2007/04/libebook-scalability.html
A proposed fix is attached. I'm not sure if order matters when
returned from the backend? Does anyone know? If not, g_list_reverse
can be
2007/1/11, Matthew Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 23:26 +0100, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
I see users on 2.6.3 struggle with the problem described at
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/evolution-list/2006-October/msg00130.html
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34
). Looks like
someone attempted a fix and it's been reverted and rewritten again.
What's the correct patch for the problem. Does anyone have a gut
feeling if it's good to backport that to 2.6.3?
Cheers,
Øystein Gisnås
Debian Evolution Maintainer Team
2006/10/19, Patrick Ohly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On So, 2006-10-15 at 22:57 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
* Is someone going to take care of the reported regression or do
you need a patch to fix it? Whoever changed the code between 2.6
and 2.8 should be in a better position to
is in experimental, and we still hope we can push that in before
the release of etch. I would recommend developing against 2.8
actually, since your application isn't targeted for etch.
/* Øystein Gisnås */
___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers
During the 2.6.x cycle, there were version bumps of libecal and
libedata-cal to make up for a previous ABI break in these two
libraries. It was unfortunate to bump the versions in a stable tree,
but now I'm more interested in the 2.8.x release.
When the version bump was commited to 2.6.x, it was
a some good reasoning for the current solution, I'll file
a bug about it and start testing a patch.
Cheers,
Øystein Gisnås
signature.asc
Description: Dette er en digitalt signert meldingsdel
___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
--
Øystein Gisnås
Debian Evolution Maintainer Team
signature.asc
Description: Dette er en digitalt signert meldingsdel
___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman
):$(LIBCAMEL_AGE) for 2.6 and upstream does the same
for the next release with bumped versions. How does that sound?
--
Øystein Gisnås
Debian Evolution Maintainer Team
signature.asc
Description: Dette er en digitalt signert meldingsdel
___
Evolution-hackers mailing
18 matches
Mail list logo
