BCAMEL_REVISION):$(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
_
a quick answer
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.gn
Thanks for the quick, informative and constructive feedback. Although
this issue may have to be discussed more, I will go on as if there is a
consensus, just to keep the preparations for our release going.
ons, 26,.04.2006 kl. 12.50 +0530, skrev Parthasarathi Susarla:
> Camel, as such is more or l
these changes? If not, I'm afraid I'll have to change the SONAME
in the Debian packages.
Thanks,
Øystein Gisnås
[1]
http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/evolution-data-server/calendar/libedata-cal/e-data-cal-view.h?r1=1.7&r2=1.8
[2]
http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/evolution-data-server/calendar
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@gnom
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 n
ads of evo
and e-d-s soon, depending of the severity of the problems.
2.8 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 */
__
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 pos
d in 2.9.1). 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
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://bugzill
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 o
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-scala
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
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 investiga
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=8408&r2=8425
It is not the new strategy to bump API_VERSION for every release I
hope..? As Tor Lillquist mentioned, it
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/gt
2007/4/14, Matthew Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, 2007-04-14 at 13:24 +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote:
> > 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?
> >
2007/4/15, Timothy Parez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if it's because of an update that happened in the
> background to Evolution (Ubuntu 7.04) today, but my code which uses
> evolution-sharp no longer works.
You might have been bitten by this:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi
eeds people like Ross. I'm
glad to see you on the team!
Personally I find addressbook interesting because it's one of the
easier components to try out new things on that still has big
business, or end user value. Syncing for example, is very interesting
for addressbook.
I
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 instead:
http://n800evolution.blogspot.com/2007/05/improved-vcard-parser.html
Cheers,
Øystein
_
It seems like http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366250 didn't
make it for the 2.10.2 release monday.
Could someone (Varadhan?) please give a statement on whether you want
to remove those docs and suggest a timeframe for that?
Cheers,
Øystein Gisnås
Debian Evolution Maintainer
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 mail
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 packag
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?
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 clo
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
f
26 matches
Mail list logo
