Re: [Evolution] Re: [Evolution-hackers] Questions about evolutionfuture plan

[Lee Revell <rlrevell joe-job com>]

On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 20:32 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I wouldn't say that a patch that didn't get approval is (always) because
> of political reasoning.
> 

Maybe that was a poor choice of words.  What I meant was just that if
you don't need "hidejunk", maybe because you have a good spam filter on
the mail server, then from your perspective my patch is acceptable, even
though it can't be merged because some users need this feature.

On a related note, I have another proof of concept patch that speeds up
the interface even more, by disabling the regeneration of the
"Unmatched" vfolder whenever any vfolder is rebuilt.  I haven't even
posted this one, for obvious reasons, but if you never use "unmatched"
then it's effectively a free performance boost.

Are these the kinds of patches the OP was looking for?

Lee