Re: [Evolution] Re: [Evolution-hackers] Questions about evolutionfuture plan

[Not Zed <notzed ximian com>]

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
> > > > > also)
> > > >
> > > > The version in the HEAD branch on cvs.gnome.org
> > > >
> > > > More information:
> > > >
> > > >   http://www.go-evolution.org/Compiling_Evolution_from_CVS
> >
> >
> > > 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
> would notice.


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.