[Evolution] Need focus on Exchange (was Re: CalDAV - any successes out there)

[Per Nystrom <pnystrom netmagic net>]

On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:02 -0600, Peter Van Lone wrote:
> On 2/16/07, Patrick O'Callaghan <poc usb ve> wrote:
> <snip>
> > While I understand the need for an Exchange client
> > under Linux, I can't help wondering how much this distracts developer
> > attention from the rest of Evo.
>
> > From the perspective of hoping to drive Linux desktop adoption into
> the corporate world, Linux must have an enterprise-ready groupware
> client that can replace Outlook with little or no loss of
> functionality.
>
> Evolution has been touted as just that ... but thus far (IMHO) has
> fallen considerably short -- and is actually pretty weak. Its poor
> showing has cost linux 2 desktop rollouts that I personally was hoping
> to assist with. I'm certain that there are many more.
>
> There are *many* good/strong personal groupware offerings. I'd vote
> for please, distracting the developers from "the rest of EVO" -- so
> that we can finally get the product that we need to compete with
> Outlook/Exchange.
>
> Peter

*Exactly* on the mark.  Everyone and their brother in the corporate
world uses Exchange, and that's unlikely to change in the future.  I
implore the developers to please focus on making the connector work
reliably.  I'll help in any way I can -- though I'm not much of a
programmer.

Just out of curiousity, I searched bugzilla.gnome.org for the number of
bugs logged and closed on each version of the Evolution Exchange
product, plugged them into a spreadsheet, and came up with this:

Release
Bug count
Resolved
Pct. Resolved
1.0.x
                71
                54
               76%
1.1.x
                26
                17
               65%
1.2.x
                24
                16
               67%
1.3.x
                26
                20
               77%
1.4
                27
                20
               74%
1.4.5
                23
                17
               74%
1.4.6
                11
                 6
               55%
1.4.7
                27
                25
               93%
1.5
               148
               101
               68%
2.0.0
                18
                14
               78%
2.0.1
                28
                16
               57%
2.0.2
                44
                33
               75%
2.0.3
                51
                34
               67%
2.1
               163
               106
               65%
2.2.x
                38
                34
               89%
2.3.x
               179
                88
               49%
2.4.x
                93
                82
               88%
2.5.x
               134
               112
               84%
2.6.0
               100
                60
               60%
2.7.x
                39
                18
               46%
2.8.x
                65
                10
               15%
2.9.x
               190
                50
               26%

There are a lot of variables not accounted for here, but the dropoff in
closure rate after 2.6.0 is still pretty dramatic.