Re: [Evolution-hackers] inline gpg support bounty

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>]

On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:54 +1300, Matt Brown wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> I have half an idea that I might have a go at attempting the inline gpg
> support bounty for Evolution (Bug #127521) seeing as the current attempt
> seems to have stalled with only send support implemented. 
> 
> After spending an hour or two reading bug reports (#17540, #17541 in
> particular) about this issue, and some old mailing list posts, I'm very
> cautious about proceeding as there seems to be a great deal of hidden
> complexity in this issue. So my current strategy is this post, to get an
> up to date idea of where this is at and what might be possible. 
> 
> 1) There are (incomplete) patches attached to bug #127521, however
> nothing has been done since then and a post by Not Zed at the time
> stated they weren't going to be applied anytime soon. 
> 
> The only other posts / bugs from after May 2004 that I can find related
> to this issue, and ranty posts from dissatisfied users :P
> 
> Can I safely assume the previous attempt has stalled and there is not
> any current work in this area?

I believe you can

> 
> 2) Required Support
> The bounty lists the require functionality as "support of inline-pgp"
> emails, with an extension of allowing them to be sent. 
> 
> Given that there seems to be widespread agreement that inline pgp is
> broken fairly fundamentally, would a patch that only implemented
> decryption / viewing support of received messages be acceptable?

I would personally be happy with that, but I'm not sure if just that
much would qualify for the bounty or not (jpr?)

certainly rendering received inline-pgp messages is by far the more
important of the 2.

> 
> 3) Chance of Inclusion
> Should I manage to come up with a patch to support viewing of inline-pgp
> messages, that addressed the issues raised so far (ie nested inlines
> etc), and assuming other prerequisites (ie coding style, copyright
> stuff) were satisified, would this be a candidate for inclusion into
> Evolution or have their been developments since the posting of the
> bounty that would preclude this?

it would definitely be considered (altho not for 2.2 since we are
feature frozen, but would be for 2.4 if we got the patch in time)

as additional info, I think implementing this as an EPlugin would be the
way to go (this helps you as well since you wouldn't have to keep up
with changes we make to the internal code so much)

Jeff