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

["IGnatius T Foobar" <ajc citadel org>]

Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Just to be clear, my proposal was to have them as normal functions under
> the old names (for backwards compatibility). They could be hidden by
> defines, but I don't like that because then someone reading code which
> calls libical cannot tell whether the code handles the memory correctly
> unless he also checks how it is compiled.
>
> Cut-and-paste could lead to memory handling errors.
>   
I think Patrick's proposed plan (all five steps) makes a lot of sense.  
That's the one we're going to go with.  It maintains compatibility with 
both Evolution and other applications while allowing everyone to migrate 
to the new API at whatever pace makes sense for them.

We will increment the library version, of course.  Expect it to be at 
least 0.33, but this is a significant enough change that we might even 
go to 0.40.

-- Art