Re: balsa 0.9.4?

[Ian Campbell <ijc25 cam ac uk>]

> PS. It seems that there is common agreement on the approaching feature
> freeze for next stable version, doesn't it? I have been considering long
> discussed merge of MailboxNode with LibbalsaMailbox (it would simplify the
> IMAP folder set handling a LOT) but I wonder how one can do it properly.
> LibbalsaMailbox is supposed to be abstraction for a physical mailbox and
> it is not expected to contain information like expanded or style, am I
> correct? One should then implement this visualisation differently, right?
> BTW, have anyone ben looking at it closely?

I would like the merge because it would make the inclusion of a local
mailbox tree much cleaner, but I think it should wait til the 0.11
series, I have been holding off thinking to much abou starting it because 
I was hoping there could be a stable release sooner rather than later (we 
have to draw the line somewhere, and where we are at now seems like a
good point to stop and just do bugfixes) 

In the future, I don't think there is any reason to limit LibBalsaMailbox
to only represent a physical mailbox, this is what it has been in the past
but there is no reason not to consider changing this - It could just as
easily represtent a mailbox + associated attributes. I also have
half-baked ideas about rfc/ whatever message digests and represting them
as a mailbox.

As for the distintion between 0.9.3.1 and 0.9.4, I think adding another
layer of version numbering just because a change is considered to be
small is unneccesary, just call it 0.9.4 - it is a new version, who cares
if it has 1 bug fix or 10.

Ian.