Re: [Evolution-hackers] Camel IMAPX RFC5464 compliance

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

Please don't drop me from Cc when replying to my messages.
See http://david.woodhou.se/reply-to-list.html

On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 10:30 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> On Thursday 05 August 2010 David Woodhouse wrote:
> > 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?
> > [...] 
> > 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.
> 
> Okay, let's say, we will patch upstream IMAPX to support RFC5464. The patch 
> gets reviewed, and after being polished it will (hopefully :-) be accepted in 
> upstream.
> 
> How long do you think it would take you to backport such a patch to 2.30, 
> assuming we heed to the aforementioned implementation recommendations?

Just to clarify -- I would expect you to do the backport yourself.

When I said I've been backporting most IMAPX changes from master to
2.30... that's because I'd been making most of them. I wasn't
volunteering to backport *your* changes too. :)

It shouldn't be that hard. Probably even less than a day -- I suspect
Chen was a little pessimistic in his estimate.

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