Re: [Evolution] Re: [Evolution-hackers] Questions about evolutionfuture plan
- From: Not Zed <notzed ximian com>
- To: Lee Revell <rlrevell joe-job com>
- Cc: evolution-hackers lists ximian com, Evolution List <evolution lists ximian com>, spamfrommailing pvanhoof be, ls ximian com
- Subject: Re: [Evolution] Re: [Evolution-hackers] Questions about evolutionfuture plan
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 08:59:01 +0530
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 14:10 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 11:30 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 13:04 +0300, regatta wrote:
2- Is there any hacked version of evolution (one that some hackers
patch it with many unreleased patches so users can test it and use it
The version in the HEAD branch on cvs.gnome.org
Will this one is not what I'm looking for, I can download the CVS
version but I am asking if somebody (or people) is patching the
evolution with some non proved patches and using them
There's no "secret" version of evolution (well, not as far as I know).
Everything "bleeding edge" and "new" is happening in cvs HEAD.
If you really want to live on the bleeding edge then please try some of
the patches which have been posted, but won't be merged anytime soon due
to political reasons.
For example, I posted a patch which speeds up the display of the "Unread
Mail" folder by _several orders of magnitude_, but it won't be merged
anytime soon because it disables hiding of junk messages (which IMHO was
so inefficiently implemented that it should never have been allowed in,
but now that we have the "feature" we can't just rip it out, even for a
100x speedup in displaying the message list). See the "Performance with
Exchange 2003" thread, among others.
I get the impression that none of the Evolution developers have even
tried my patch, no one around here seems to care about performance. If
I could get one other user to confirm the massive speedup, maybe someone
We've discussed your patch already - it only hides the real problem and
doesn't actually fix it. It also removes a necessary feature.
So as it stands the patch is unsuitable.
I don't really see how there is any argument with that.
] [Thread Prev