Re: [Evolution] IMAP speed

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 12:44 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-17-08 at 12:53 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> > Not to say there aren't new bugs now (offline seems a bit iffy for
> > example) ... 
>
> What's the prognosis on that, Michael? Is that in the release critical
> category, or a "yeah, whatever. We'll get to it eventually".

It will be release critical to be no worse than previous releases ...

Anything better will be a bonus.

> [As you'll recall, the offline use case has been my bugaboo for years
> now; when I saw you were redoing the IMAP code I became hopeful, but
> unfortunately there has been great cause for skepticism in the past. I
> would dearly love to stop mucking about with offlineimap / getmail /
> fetchmail / ssh tunnels etc and just use Evo, period - but the bar is
> high. I will NOT be caught again an hour out over the Pacific only to
> discover Evo won't allow me to access IMAP messages that it perfectly
> well has cached but, since it wasn't in "offline" mode when last
> disconnected, it couldn't figure out it had. That made me very
> grumpy. :|]

That sounds like a pretty old bug there.

Certainly all of the normal or higher bugs that have been filed against
evolution for offline imap (not imap4), are fixed.  Or they're things
like performance that would be more nice to fix than need fixing (and
really can't be fixed in a reasonable amount of time).  As far as i'm
aware anyway - there are so many bugs it is easy to miss them.

> Anyway, it's your call whether or not it's a priority - I'm just
> curious.

Well above is only my personal take.  I don't know what management have
assigned to this (or to anything else for that matter, if they even
have).  I'm quite out of the loop lately, and counting down the days to
when I can move onto something else.

 Michael