On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 10:54 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Listing sources shows local:/system instead of local:system and opening
> "local:system" also still fails.
>
> Milan pointed to the history of e-source.c, but I don't see which
> (other?) commits are needed to fix these issues.
Hi,
On Fr, 2011-04-08 at 16:31 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 15:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Do, 2011-04-07 at 11:33 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Once this passes muster, I'll push these patches (probably *without* the
> > > NTLM bits, if you're looking closely at
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 15:31 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Do, 2011-04-07 at 11:33 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Once this passes muster, I'll push these patches (probably *without* the
> > NTLM bits, if you're looking closely at what I included) to the
> > gnome-2-32 branches and perhaps star
On Do, 2011-04-07 at 11:33 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Once this passes muster, I'll push these patches (probably *without* the
> NTLM bits, if you're looking closely at what I included) to the
> gnome-2-32 branches and perhaps start doing a 'final call' for 2.32.3
> candidate bugs/patches.
Pl
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 10:39 +0200, sean finney wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 09:08:28AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > You're more than welcome to use git.infradead.org if you want.
>
> Well it would be nice to get them *somewhere*, anyway, since it does feel
> silly that there are a number
Hi David,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 09:08:28AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> You're more than welcome to use git.infradead.org if you want. But even
> if Milan sees the 2.32 branch as being dead and doesn't want to spend
> any of his own time on it (and nobody can blame him for that), I would
> ho
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 15:08 +0200, Milan Crha wrote:
> Hmm, I still do not like the idea of adding things to gnome-2-32 branch,
> I thought I saw you telling that if anyone will complain then you'll not
> do that and I thought I complained to it, but I cannot find the email
> right now, so I cannot
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 09:54 +0200, sean finney wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you would be in a good position to do it though.
>
> Because I'm not a gnome dev, I (a) don't have push access, and (b)
> am a bit hesitant to go against Milan's wishes, since he's the dev
> who is primarily keeping things up
Hi David,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:07:38PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Personally, no. I'd rather ignore MAPI completely and get on with the
> implementation of evolution-ews.
Understandable, though as we've discussed on IRC we don't really have
the option of using that here, at least for a
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:33 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I have built some Fedora 14 packages of Evo 2.32.2 with the latest
> additional fixes, for testing.
Hi,
you may ask on user's list, this list is for developers.
> Once this passes muster, I'll push these patches (...) to the
> gn
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 12:45 +0200, sean finney wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:33:22AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Once this passes muster, I'll push these patches (probably *without* the
> > NTLM bits, if you're looking closely at what I included) to the
> > gnome-2-32 bra
Hi David,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:33:22AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Once this passes muster, I'll push these patches (probably *without* the
> NTLM bits, if you're looking closely at what I included) to the
> gnome-2-32 branches and perhaps start doing a 'final call' for 2.32.3
> candidat
12 matches
Mail list logo
