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

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] Patch: For bugs #50997, #59685 and partially #41514
From:       Don Sanders <sanders () kde ! org>
Date:       2005-07-29 6:59:59
Message-ID: 200507291717.56930.sanders () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 29 July 2005 14:59, Don Sanders wrote:
> On Thursday 28 July 2005 21:14, Carsten Burghardt wrote:
> > Don Sanders sagte:
> > > On Thursday 28 July 2005 17:00, Carsten Burghardt wrote:
> > >> Don Sanders sagte:
> > >> > On Wednesday 27 July 2005 16:02, Don Sanders wrote:
> > >> >> On Wednesday 27 July 2005 15:33, Don Sanders wrote:
> > >> >> > On Wednesday 27 July 2005 15:21, Carsten Burghardt wrote:
> > >> >> > > Am Tuesday 26 July 2005 06:39 schrieb Don Sanders:
> > >> >> > > > Hare Krsna,
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > I've attached a patch that conditionally enables the
> > >> >> > > > action scheduler for filtering of incoming mails for
> > >> >> > > > online imap accounts and for manual filtering.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > I see a lot of duplicate code here. You're checking the
> > >> >> > > config if the action scheduler is enabled via static
> > >> >> > > (?) bools and this is done in headers and the imap
> > >> >> > > account. That would mean that you have to further
> > >> >> > > duplicate this if you're going to add support for more
> > >> >> > > account types.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Yes, that's correct.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I suggest I clean this up and factor the test into a
> > >> >> kmkernel method after I commit and before I work on porting
> > >> >> the other accounts. That is I assume this is not a
> > >> >> significant objection.
> > >> >
> > >> > Actually rather than touching kmkernel a static method in
> > >> > the action scheduler would be better I think.
> > >> >
> > >> > Anyway I'll assume your comment is meant as a helpful
> > >> > suggestion for improving the code after I commit rather than
> > >> > a serious objection to my committing.
> > >>
> > >> It's actually something in between.
> > >
> > > Ok I'll play safe and take that as an objection to my
> > > committing then.
> > >
> > >> If you are pointed to areas where the code can be easily
> > >> improved and you agree about that I don't understand why you
> > >> want to commit it first and improve it afterwards. If other
> > >> people post patches on the mailinglist and someone sees
> > >> problems then they usually try to improve their work before
> > >> they commit. Why is your code different?
> > >
> > > It's not. However please be aware this patch is work on some of
> > > the most wanted bugs and features for KDE.
> > >
> > > Basically on irc I got the impression that Till (and Cornelius
> > > and maybe Rheinhold) wanted me to commit, actually some of them
> > > seemed to be a bit irked that I hadn't committed. Personally I
> > > would also like to commit.
> > >
> > > So I see this as one vote for committing (mine) and one against
> > > (yours). If Till responds supporting the patch being committed
> > > then that's two votes for and if I don't get any further votes
> > > against by tomorrow then I'll commit as per the commit policy.
> >
> > Oh my god...ok, please go ahead and commit.
>
> Hurray!!

Hmm, I have some problems getting head to compile with 3.3. I'll look 
again later.

Don Sanders.
_______________________________________________
KMail developers mailing list
KMail-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel

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