Re: [evolution-patches] seeking patch review for bug #41846
- From: Calvin Liu <calvin liu sun com>
- To: Not Zed <notzed ximian com>
- Cc: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>, evolution-patches ximian com
- Subject: Re: [evolution-patches] seeking patch review for bug #41846
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:03:45 +0800
Not Zed, Jeff,
I tested it on my linux box. Seems it works for me, no outstanding
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:14, Not Zed wrote:
> I dunno jeff, it seems to be on the right track - at least for a
> solution which will work for most of the time. So long as it checks for
> the user cancelled exception, which is the only really important (and
> configured) one, it could just go onto the next message otherwise.
> It probably also needs to do the same as the pop fetching code, if you
> get a user cancel, clear the cancellation and still do a folder sync (so
> it doesn't try to re-send messages).
> On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 11:26 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > This isn't the right fix. What if the exception was the the user
> > cancelled? or that the server was unreachable? or...?
> > I don't think you should bother trying to fix this bug right now. The
> > proper fix will require a fair amount of work I believe (making sure
> > all the underlying code sets the proper exceptions, keeping track of
> > which exceptions we've gotten, etc).
> > I suggest you move on to another bug and leave this one up to me or
> > Zucchi.
> > Jeff
> > On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 18:45 +0800, Calvin Liu wrote:
> > > Hi, there,
> > >
> > > Here's a patch for bug #41846/55290.
> > > This bugs shows the outbox queue could be blocked when error occurs.
> > >
> > > Patch is simple, just change "break" to "continue" in a for loop.
> > > Seems work for me.
> > >
> > > Please review it. I'm wondering if there's any side-effect.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Calvin
] [Thread Prev