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

[Chenthill <pchenthill novell com>]

On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 09:37 -0400, IGnatius T Foobar wrote:
> > Since we do really want to remove the fork and pick up packages from
> > upstream, I can change the apis in evolution related packages if a new
> > set of apis with some suffix is provided from libical upstream.
> >   
> Many of you have probably already read this on the libical mailing list, 
> but just in case:
> 
> I have applied Chenthill's memory management patches (only to the 
> 'libical' directory and to the examples -- still have to do the 
> 'libicalcap' and 'libicalss' directories) using function names ending in 
> "_r".  For example, icalcomponent_as_ical_string() is now simply a 
> wrapper around icalcomponent_as_ical_string_r() which places the new 
> string buffer on the ring before returning it to the caller.  The 
> functions whose names end in "_r" have had Chenthill's memory management 
> patches applied to them.
> 
> Do we still need to add the HANDLE_LIBICAL_MEMORY hack to make the old 
> function names act like the new ones?  Chenthill's most recent message 
> (quoted above) seems to imply that the Evolution team is willing to move 
> to the new function names.  Let me know.

IMHO, HANDLE_LIBICAL_MEMORY can be removed.


thanks, Chenthill.