Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removing libical fork, moving to new upstream?

2008-10-10 Thread IGnatius T Foobar
No worries, we're not on a strict release schedule.   We can do point 
releases at any time if you find that something needs to be updated.


Thanks for your continued involvement.  We're really looking forward to 
the final outcome.


 -- Art

Chenthill wrote:

I was not able to try the upstream libical yet. I am right now packed
with some other work, so I will try to get this done as soon as
possible.  Suddenly the weekends have gone out of my hands as I have to
move out of station to places that do not have internet connectivity.
Either me or suman will make the changes and get the work done for
2.25.1 if the time is sufficient to get libical as a external dependency
for GNOME 2.25.1. We would test the library and let you know before oct
17th.

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removing libical fork, moving to new upstream?

2008-09-23 Thread IGnatius T Foobar


I have applied Chenthill's memory management patches (only to the 
'libical' directory and to the examples -- still have to do the 
'libicalcap' and 'libicalss' directories) using function names ending in 
_r.  

IMHO, HANDLE_LIBICAL_MEMORY can be removed.
  


Ok folks, it's done ...

The remaining portions of libical (libicalcap and libicalss) have been 
converted to the _r API.   (The test suite still uses the old API and 
will continue to do so for a while.)


Now is the time for Evolution code to be updated to use the new calling 
syntax.


Is there anything we can do to facilitate this, or should we just hang 
out and wait for you folks to kick the tires on the new library?  Let me 
know...


  -- Art

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removing libical fork, moving to new upstream?

2008-09-17 Thread IGnatius T Foobar



Since we do really want to remove the fork and pick up packages from
upstream, I can change the apis in evolution related packages if a new
set of apis with some suffix is provided from libical upstream.
  
Many of you have probably already read this on the libical mailing list, 
but just in case:


I have applied Chenthill's memory management patches (only to the 
'libical' directory and to the examples -- still have to do the 
'libicalcap' and 'libicalss' directories) using function names ending in 
_r.  For example, icalcomponent_as_ical_string() is now simply a 
wrapper around icalcomponent_as_ical_string_r() which places the new 
string buffer on the ring before returning it to the caller.  The 
functions whose names end in _r have had Chenthill's memory management 
patches applied to them.


Do we still need to add the HANDLE_LIBICAL_MEMORY hack to make the old 
function names act like the new ones?  Chenthill's most recent message 
(quoted above) seems to imply that the Evolution team is willing to move 
to the new function names.  Let me know.


  -- Art

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removing libical fork, moving to new upstream?

2008-09-10 Thread IGnatius T Foobar

Chenthill wrote:

So it is better to inform all the stake holders about the change and let
them depend on the library versions to decide whether to free the memory
or not if they have a need to depend on the older versions of libical. I
think no one deny to make the necessary changes knowing that the old API
is not very stable.

Atleast once I noticed the problem. I made this patch and made all the
changes required in evolution, evolution-exchange and
evolution-data-server. I would not really like to change them again with
new APIS :)
Although I agree that the new memory model is a vast improvement over 
the existing one, I think you may be underestimating the potential 
effects of telling dozens of downstream projects that they will have to 
rewrite their code *right* *now* in order to continue using libical.  
Many will respond by forking, or staying forked, which as I mentioned 
earlier is exactly the opposite of what we are trying to accomplish.


How would you feel about a global flag which tells libical how to 
allocate memory?  Surely you wouldn't mind adding one line of code 
during an initialization phase that tells libical caller accepts the 
responsibility to free all returned strings ??   (The ring buffer 
memory model, inferior as it may be, must still be the default in order 
to run existing code unmodified.)


If this is acceptable, then would someone please point us to a patch 
which implements the memory management changes, and we'll apply an 
enhanced version of it with user-selectable memory allocation model 
added in.


 -- Art
___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removing libical fork, moving to new upstream?

2008-09-08 Thread IGnatius T Foobar




Chenthill wrote:

  On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 11:02 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
  
  
Hello!

http://sourceforge.net/projects/freeassociation/ has released 0.32 of
libical on 2008-09-01. The KDE-PIM team has switched to that code for
KDE 4.2.

On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 21:49 +, JP Rosevear wrote:


  On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 15:03 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: 
  
  
I discovered last week that there is an attempt to resurrect libical
from non-maintainership, merge all of the patches from various forks,
and start making sane releases again[1].  Are the evolution team as
whole interested in merging their changes to libical upstream and
depending on it to be installed when a release is made with all of the
relevant changes?  libical isn't exactly a small library, and statically
linking it is a waste of memory for everyone.

  
  I vaguely recall the biggest diff being timezone handling.
  

Not sure about that. They have merged the "system timezone database
conversion" code, if that's what you mean. Unfortunately they missed the
recent bug fixes required for that code to handle the upcoming
summer-winter time transition. We really should have been more active
with keeping them informed about Evolution-libical changes. I have
alerted them and the KDE-PIM team of the problem.

However, they haven't included the modified memory handling. Considering
that this breaks the user space API merging it might be a hard sell.



  
I'll happily start working on extracting the changes to EDS and pushing
them into the new libical repository, if the Evolution team as a whole
agrees that the fork of libical will be dropped.

  

+1

  
  +1 from my side too. We were discussing about this at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=541209 and wanted the changes
to be merged upstream. We wanted to get this done for 2.26.

thanks, Chenthill

In what way does it break the userspace API? Is it possible that the
API could be extended in such a way that memory handling depends upon
how it's called?

We would *really* like to get everyone merged and re-unify this library
once and for all. Everyone would benefit.

 -- Art



___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers


Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removing libical fork, moving to new upstream?

2008-09-08 Thread IGnatius T Foobar

Patrick Ohly wrote:

In the upstream libical certain functions return char * pointers into
memory stored in ring buffers. The caller must not free those pointers.
The drawback is that the life time of those strings is not predictable.

In the current Evolution libical, those same functions (not renamed!)
return copies of the string which the caller has to free. Code which was
written using the old semantic of the calls will leak memory. Code
adapted to the new semantic (like Evolution) will crash when combined
with the upstream libical without the same patch.
  
Ok, I definitely see the benefit there.   This is similar to POSIX calls 
which now offer alternative versions (usually with _r appended to the 
name) that don't use a static buffer or a ring buffer, in order to be 
reentrant?

If all users of the upstream libical are willing to adapt their code,
then the best solution would be to simply import the Evolution patch
into upstream.
  
As much as I'd like to see that happen, I don't think it's realistic.  
libical is used by dozens of downstream projects, and a sudden forced 
API change is likely to encourage them to fork (or stay forked, if 
they've already done so) -- exactly the opposite of the end we are 
trying to achieve!

If there is resistance against that, then we could provide two versions
of each of these API calls: one with the old name and old behavior and
one with the new behavior and a name suffix. 
That seems more realistic.  The alternative might be to offer a global 
flag that tells libical to behave one way or the other?  (I think 
something like that was suggested at some point.)


While I definitely think the new method of memory allocation makes far 
more sense (we'll definitely use it in Citadel, as all of our code is 
multithreaded) -- expecting the entire community to perform a flag day 
API change in lockstep is likely to cause confusion and delay.   If we 
pursued either the alternate function names or the global flag, is there 
likely to be any pushback from the Evolution team?


  -- Art

___
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers