Re: Merging work

[Jose Dapena Paz <jdapena igalia com>]

El lun, 08-10-2007 a las 00:15 +0200, Philip Van Hoof escribió:
> Hey Jose,
> 
> Would it be possible for you to check the differences of upstream
> Camel's camel-mime-utils.c with camel-lite's. I refrained from
> synchronising our camel-lite's camel-mime-utils.c with upstream Camel
> because there might have been changes that you made to support the
> attachment purging. I've found some changes that were unknown to me.

	I've been reviewing the svn log, and it seems I didn't make any change
in camel mime utils (and after reviewing the differences between
upstream camel and tinymail camel I still don't find anything I can
remember).

	Anyway, briefly, the changes are:
	* A lot of compilation warning fixes, using proper typecasts. They
should go upstream.
	* The change in parenthesis and conditions in line 795 present in
upstream camel seems to be interesting for us, as it seems an obvious
error.
	* Our fix for escaping ? seems ok at lines 1155 and 1168. Should go
upstream.
	* You changed CamelContentType instantiation to use g slice. Should be
upstream unless it breaks something there for backwards compatibility.
	* We should get the change at line 2097 upstream. But it seems even
upstream is not ok, as the *inptr validation should be 
		(*inptr && camel_mime_is_dtext(*inptr))
	instead of 
		(camel_mime_is_dtext(*inptr) && *inptr)

	In general there are no traumatic changes, and they are all more or
less wise both in our side and on camel upstream side. So I would say we
should make these changes go upstream in official camel (the only doubt
would be the GSlice issue).

-- 
Jose Dapena Paz <jdapena igalia com>
Igalia