Re: ANNOUNCE: balsa-1.3.2 released.

[Thomas Maeder <maeder+balsa glue ch>]

Note:

All I write here is from the user's perspective. I don't ask anybody to 
"correct" what I'm criticizing here, and I don't mean this to be ad 
hominem. I just hope that it's useful to those who develop Balsa.


Am 2002.02.27 14:10 schrieb(en) Peter Bloomfield:
> 
> Have you tried increasing the imap scan depth?

No, I hadn't. I didn't know that this option existed.

IMHO, this is a useful option, but it should default to the behavior 
the user experienced so far; if not, the change should be documented so 
that the user can't miss it. I haven't found it mentioned in README or 
NEWS. (BTW: 1.2.4 (which I used to use until now) isn't mentioned in 
NEWS; wasn't that a "released release").

Now that I know what it consists of, I actually like the new behavior.


> That should provide a temporary fix.

It's more than that!


> Do you see the folders that *do* get scanned when Balsa starts? If 
> so, you could also try collapsing the tree to its root, and 
> re-expanding.

I can take back (most of) my complaints. Everything seems to work fine 
- it was just too hard (for me) to notice. :-)

Since scanning IMAP folders may take some time, a visual feedback in 
the status line would be useful IMHO.


While switching forth and back between 1.2.4 and 1.3.2, I have 
discovered a minor issue:

1.2.4 used to use separate input fields for host and port of mail 
accounts. 1.3.2 converts these to a single input field (using the 
common host:port) format. The result is that in ~/.gnome/balsa, I now 
have mailboxes whose host and port are configured on two lines 
(Server=<server>\nHost=<host>) and others whose host and port are 
configured on one line (<server>:<host>). AFAICT the latter is 
appropriate for 1.3.2 (problems accessing mailboxes seem to have 
disappeared as soon as I manually edited .gnome/balsa to that effect). 
Is that correct?


Then there's this:

I have a hierarchy of IMAP directories and folders on one server. When 
Balsa 1.3.2 displays this hierarchy, it somehow invents empty 
sub-directories with empty names whose contents are that of the 
directories parent; the hierarchy as displayed by Balsa 1.3.2 looks 
something like this:

- Software Engineering
| -
| | -
| | | +
| | | + C++
| | + C++
| + C++

In reality, there is only one C++ directory, located directly under 
"Software Engineering"; there is no directory with an empty name under 
"Software Engineering"; the directories displayed on lines 2 to 4 all 
behave as if they were symbolic links to "Software Engineering".

I observe this behavior for more than one directory (but not all of 
them), and the blank in the name isn't the distinctive factor; I have 
no idea what the distinctive factor is.


So much for now
Thanks everybody for listening and working!