One thing you could do which would be of use would be to sniff the
packets that Outlook sends to Google Mail's IMAP and log them for the
Evolution developers to read so that perhaps they can see what queries
Outlook is doing that is so much faster than what Evolution is doing and
maybe try to mimic
Hi there,
t almost sounds impossible but still, and that's why I ask. I noticed
that the variable "args" in imap_command_strdup_vprintf is never freed.
That would be a rather large memory leak (almost every IMAP command is
created this way).
So I'm a bit stunned that nobody else ever saw this on
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 16:45 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> t almost sounds impossible but still, and that's why I ask. I noticed
> that the variable "args" in imap_command_strdup_vprintf is never freed.
>
> That would be a rather large memory leak (almost every IMAP command is
> cr
Hello,
I think we have some Evolution packagers around here, so let me draw
your attention to a problem that a SyncEvolution user recently had (see
[1]).
He upgraded to Ubuntu 7.10/Evolution 2.12, but still had a SyncEvolution
binary around which depended on the older libedataserver1.2-7 from
Evo
On Di, 2007-10-02 at 18:42 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> Anyway, if you want a simple way to build Evo from SVN without
> rebuilding all of Gnome (as with GARNOME), give it a whirl!
>
> http://mad-scientist.us/evolution.html
Thanks a lot for this, I found it very useful. It did not quite do
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 17:01 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
> Hi Øystein
>
> On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 13:11 +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
> > 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
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:02 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 16:45 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> >
> > The patch is of course a simple "+ g_ptr_array_free (args, TRUE);" right
> > before the "return out;", right?
> >
> > ps. Adding Jeffrey in CC as I think he has a good idea
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 03:25 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 11:58 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > I took a look at the IDLE implementation last night and felt it went
> > about it the wrong way.
>
> Yes, you are right. I think the right fix is to create a new API called
>
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 10:13 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> I have a feeling, though, that the main reason Evo is so much slower
> than Outlook is due to the summary info gathering which (used to?)
> grab
> all the mailing-list headers as well as the normal stuff in order to
> be
> able to vfolde
