Re: [Evolution-hackers] inline gpg support bounty

[JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>]

On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:40 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 16:33 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: 
> > On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 15:23 -0500, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 10:47 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:54 +1300, Matt Brown wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > I agree, it is more important.  I think if this was done well, we could
> > > separate the two items out (sending and receiving) and pay the same
> > > bounty for both.
> > 
> > sounds good to me
> 
> I thought the other code already does sending?

Thats what I thought, I just wanted to delaying the receiving part of
the bounty  (which as discussed seems more important - sending is ok but
it means we would be sending out broken stuff right?).  

If the sending code is already solid, we could probably resurrect it and
pay out the bounty for 2.3.

-JP
-- 
JP Rosevear <jpr novell com>
Novell, Inc.