Re: [Evolution-hackers] [evolution-patches] The differences between camel-lite and normal camel

[Jules Colding <colding omesc com>]

On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 10:40 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 10:12 +0200, Jules Colding wrote:
> 
> > Looking forward to seeing it. Consider putting your changes behind
> > --enable-camel-lite (or --enable-eds-lite) defines. That is the right
> > way to do it IMHO. It will then also be easier to put some configure
> > magic in place if required to support an out-of-tree e-d-s branch.
> 
> Will do that.
>  
> > > Criticism is welcome. Off this list please.
> > 
> > Good luck.
> 
> Thanks a lot for this positive reaction. It has been hard to get any
> such reaction for contributing to the Evolution project :(. From the
> Novell team itself, you get mostly reactions like: you are being
> agnostic and counterproductive, bla bla bla.

I don't think it is meant as hard as it may sound. I myself have been
wondering why reactions from the official Novell team are so hard to
get, but (as Harish once told me) they are really busy and simply do not
have more than 24 hours any given day.

So if you think that they are a little negative in their reactions then
it may simply be because of stress. They might really like to use your
work but they are frustrated because they do not have the time to
"massage" your patches into a shape that are immediately applicable to
CVS or a review. 

I too personally find that experiments are necessary in software
development, but I fear that the Novell guys simply do not have the time
for such luxury, however much they would like to.

Best regards,
  jules

 

> ps. I would hereby like to repeat my personal appreciation to the work
> Matthew has been doing on libedataserver, Kjartan's work and Pavel's
> work. I think especially these times it's difficult to keep believing in
> the purpose of contributing to the many sub-projects of Evolution.
> Nevertheless, I think, it's important that we keep doing that.
> 
>