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

2008-09-19 Thread Chenthill
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 22:52 -0400, IGnatius T Foobar wrote: > >> 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". > > I

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [opensuse-gnome] Evolution 2.22 for Factory

2008-09-19 Thread Hans Petter Jansson
[ Adding evolution-hackers to Cc since this contains potentially useful feedback and some questions ] On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 18:06 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 00:40 -0500, Hans Petter Jansson wrote: > > Note 2: If you ran the newer version of Evolution previously, you shoul

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [opensuse-gnome] Evolution 2.22 for Factory

2008-09-19 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan
Hello Guys, On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:14 -0500, Hans Petter Jansson wrote: > [ Adding evolution-hackers to Cc since this contains potentially useful > feedback and some questions ] > > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 18:06 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 00:40 -0500, Hans Petter Jansso

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [opensuse-gnome] Evolution 2.22 for Factory

2008-09-19 Thread Hans Petter Jansson
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 09:49 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 22:14 -0500, Hans Petter Jansson wrote: > > That's a question for the Evo team, I guess - it looks like it could be > > trivially fixed by moving the folder.db somewhere else, or calling it > > folder.index or fold