Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel IMAPX RFC5464 compliance

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:22 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:
> Now, I would like to know how we should deal with the issue. We (the 
> evolution-kolab developers) could patch the 2.30 version of IMAPX only to get 
> things running. In this case, would our additions be pulled upstream?
>   As an alternative, would anyone like to implement RFC5464 in the current 
> upstream IMAPX so we could try and backport the changes into 2.30?

I would strongly recommend that you do it in the development branch
first, then we can backport it to gnome-2-30.

I've been backporting most IMAPX changes from master to the 2.30 branch;
I see no particular reason why we shouldn't backport METADATA support
too, as long as you're careful not to add new user-visible strings that
would need translation.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David Woodhouse intel com                              Intel Corporation