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
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
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
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.
IMHO,
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
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 18:00 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 09:12 -0400, IGnatius T Foobar wrote:
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
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
On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 09:12 -0400, IGnatius T Foobar wrote:
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
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
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 12:16 -0400, IGnatius T Foobar wrote:
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
On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 12:16 -0400, IGnatius T Foobar wrote:
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?
Chenthill already provided the relevant links:
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
On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 21:49 +, JP Rosevear wrote:
On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 15:03 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
Hi,
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
On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 15:03 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
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
Matthew Barnes
On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 15:03 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
Hi,
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
15 matches
Mail list logo
