[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] ical handling library
From:       Helge Hess <helge.hess () opengroupware ! org>
Date:       2004-08-29 13:20:33
Message-ID: 34DDEAF4-F9BE-11D8-BD74-000D93C1A604 () opengroupware ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Sebastian,

I'm taking Dan Winship from the Evolution team into CC assuming that he 
knows more about the Evolution position regarding that library.

Those should be the major (OpenSource) libical forks right now:
- Evolution
- KDE-PIM
- Mozilla Calendar
- OpenGroupware.org

OGo has not done any modifications to libical (except very minor ones 
for gnustep-make and MacOSX support), we just did a "snapshot". So we 
would be pleased if we could reuse work (fixes) done by Evolution 
and/or KDE.

It would be no problem for us to host libical development 
infrastructure on the OGo servers (mailing list, Subversion repository, 
webserver, ...). Of course this only makes sense if the major parties 
actually take part in this.

So we need a statement from:
- Evolution
- KDE-PIM
- ??
;-)

best regards,
   Helge

On Aug 29, 2004, at 15:00, Sebastian Ley wrote:
> * \"shaheed r. haque\" wrote:
>> I did indeed try to resync libical with upstream, and I initially 
>> seemed to
>> engage the upstream folks. Sadly, after spending a substantial amount 
>> of
>> time and energy and almost getting to a resync point, I stopped 
>> getting any
>> responses to my enquiries as to when we could do the final push (and,
>> presumably, have them go from RC4 for a new release).
>>
>> I have all the work bitrotting on my hard drive. I am not sure what 
>> to do
>> with it.
>>
>> Suggestions, ideas welcome (though I have much less time to do this 
>> now
>> :-().
>
> Well, I suppose the best(TM) solution would be to revive libical under 
> new
> maintainership and encourage its users who currently maintain a fork 
> (KDE,
> Gnome, OpenGorupware.org, etc.) to merge their fixes. It really makes 
> no
> sense to duplicate this work in every project and the idea of having a
> standalone ical handling library is actually a good one.
>
> Which leaves the question whether such a project would be adopted by 
> the the
> different projects and who will host the revived libical.
>
> This procedure will require some kickoff work for instating the 
> project and
> merge in the various bugfixes and enhancements as well as for 
> substituting a
> local fork with the new libical including regression testing. But in 
> the long
> term such a collaboration would provide fruitful.
>
> What do you think of this?
>
> Sebastian
>
> P.S.: Please keep me in CC
-- 
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org

_______________________________________________
kde-pim mailing list
kde-pim@mail.kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]