Offlineimap is dead, long live offlineimap?

[Jim Pryor]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 04:21:53PM +0200, Christoph Höger wrote:
> > 2. I'm going to have to agree with Jim's response. Python has a large
> > library and community to work with.
> > 
> > To combine an answer to your number 3 with the Jim's note about John's
> > comment on the sad state of imaplib: I have been working on a new
> > high-level IMAP library for python, and a rewrite of OfflineIMAP. I'm
> > prepared to support it by fixing bugs, answering questions, and adding
> > much-desired features; but progress is slow, and frankly I could use
> > help.
> 
> Basically there are IMAP libraries available for other languages I was
> just wondering if the choice of python for such a rather complex source
> base was more a pro or a con for contributers to join. I did not intend
> to flame against python.

@Christoph: I didn't think you were flaming Python. I was just stating the
presumptive case for staying with it. By all means, you or anyone else
should feel free to nominate specific alternatives and make the case for
them.


@Dominic: your project sounds good. I'm sure the community would like to
hear more about it.


-- 
Jim Pryor
profjim at jimpryor.net