=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 10 September 2002 20:10, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Tuesday 10 September 2002 11:59, Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote: (...) > > Am I the only one understanding this the way that Don would _like_ > > to 'have to' fork? > i don't think anyone would LIKE to have a fork. if it become absolutely > necessary, though, you will discover that some people are willing to > support it. I am taking you seriously: IMHO The above says that you are willing to contribute something valuable by taking into account that there _is_ the official KMail HEAD branch and that working on the branch would lead to difficulties at merge-time if the official HEAD were ignored during your branch planing and implementation. To me your statement does look like you _do_ care about whether your changes will make merging difficult or not. So please think about my proposal: Any technical issues might increase the gap between the make-it-cool branch and KMail's official HEAD branch should be discussed not via private mails but _in_public_ by posting your questions/suggestions to this mailing list so the KMail core developers and the KMail maintainer can read about it and comment in case they whish to do so. I hope asking for this is not considered unpolite? Private mails are OK as long as they do not cover topics that are of common interest of the KMail developers... Karl-Heinz =2D --=20 Karl-Heinz Zimmer, Senior Software Engineer, Klar=E4lvdalens Datakonsult AB =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.1.91 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9fj3LCcaVnbvggDcRAq9xAKCslAyOTIrTK3bO7EIxefGWxPsligCgwOKh yJGUpI04TxzM32x/0NWdEqo=3D =3DXTGx =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ KMail Developers mailing list kmail@mail.kde.org http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail