[PATCH 0/13] Re: Reintegrate imaplib2 and IDLE, again
nicolas.s-dev at laposte.net
Mon Feb 7 22:19:48 GMT 2011
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 03:58:59PM -0500, Ethan Glasser-Camp wrote:
> Wait, I'm lost.
No problem. :-)
> Are you talking about the APPENDUID feature, or the
> conversion from imaplib to imaplib2 (or maybe both)? When you say
> that something should be optional, does that mean it should be
When I say it should be optional, I want to say it should be an option
in the sense that users have the possibility to either use it or not.
This usually means that it is user-configurable but not only. It may
depends of data (in the case of a new configuration format file, for
> Or do you just mean that we make it available as
> "next", and don't put it in a release until lots of users chime in
> with "I've tested this, it works great"?
The next branch is the first filter. It gives us (developers, testers
and advanced users) a chance to not include in the mainline strong
breackages for the users (ones expecting no errors from the software).
The easier detectables breackages. But the better tests are from the
users themselves and providing them untested/experimental features
(marked as so) is the best way to ensure most stability.
Notice that stability isn't the only criteria. Design, ergonomy, etc can
be validated, too. Users have their expectations and ideas of what is
good and what is crap. And they are usually right, more than developers.
More information about the OfflineIMAP-project