Re: [Evolution-hackers] Removing libical fork, moving to new upstream?

[Chenthill <pchenthill novell com>]

On Mon, 2008-09-08 at 12:16 -0400, IGnatius T Foobar wrote:
> Chenthill wrote: 
> > On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 11:02 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> >   
> > > Hello!
> > > 
> > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/freeassociation/ has released 0.32 of
> > > libical on 2008-09-01. The KDE-PIM team has switched to that code for
> > > KDE 4.2.
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 21:49 +0000, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > >     
> > > > On Sun, 2007-05-20 at 15:03 +0100, Ross Burton wrote: 
> > > >       
> > > > > I discovered last week that there is an attempt to resurrect libical
> > > > > from non-maintainership, merge all of the patches from various forks,
> > > > > and start making sane releases again[1].  Are the evolution team as
> > > > > whole interested in merging their changes to libical upstream and
> > > > > depending on it to be installed when a release is made with all of the
> > > > > relevant changes?  libical isn't exactly a small library, and statically
> > > > > linking it is a waste of memory for everyone.
> > > > >         
> > > > I vaguely recall the biggest diff being timezone handling.
> > > >       
> > > Not sure about that. They have merged the "system timezone database
> > > conversion" code, if that's what you mean. Unfortunately they missed the
> > > recent bug fixes required for that code to handle the upcoming
> > > summer->winter time transition. We really should have been more active
> > > with keeping them informed about Evolution-libical changes. I have
> > > alerted them and the KDE-PIM team of the problem.
> > > 
> > > However, they haven't included the modified memory handling. Considering
> > > that this breaks the user space API merging it might be a hard sell.
> > > 
> > >     
> > > > > I'll happily start working on extracting the changes to EDS and pushing
> > > > > them into the new libical repository, if the Evolution team as a whole
> > > > > agrees that the fork of libical will be dropped.
> > > > >         
> > > +1
> > >     
> > +1 from my side too. We were discussing about this at
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=541209 and wanted the changes
> > to be merged upstream. We wanted to get this done for 2.26.
> > 
> > thanks, Chenthill
> In what way does it break the userspace API?   Is it possible that the
> API could be extended in such a way that memory handling depends upon
> how it's called?
All the information/discussion about this is available at,
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=516408
and
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=528986
> 
> We would *really* like to get everyone merged and re-unify this
> library once and for all.  Everyone would benefit.
We provide our support too to get this done!!


thanks, Chenthill.