[PATCH 0/13] Re: Reintegrate imaplib2 and IDLE, again
nicolas.s-dev at laposte.net
Tue Feb 8 18:05:53 GMT 2011
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 09:48:43AM +0100, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 03:17:14 -0500, Ethan Glasser-Camp <glasse at cs.rpi.edu> wrote:
> > I don't think converting from imaplib to imaplib2 is the sort of change
> > we can make configurable without adding a significant amount of code
> > complexity. Is this something you would like me to add? I think it is
> > more likely to break things than the simple switch-over that I have now.
No, I don't expect an option for the imaplib2 migration but we might
split the IDLE feature into finer grained pieces (imaplib2/IDLE?).
> This way people could test it on some accounts and we get time
> to iron out any kinks we see. That's why I would love to see APENDUID
> going in first and have a "proper" release with that.
Notice we don't have timeline based releases. Merging both APENDUID and
IDLE in a release with a have longer -rc is fine. I don't think APENDUID
should have a stable release for its own unless I'm missing something.
If so, I ask to be convinced. I'd rather merge topics while working
heavily on them.
More information about the OfflineIMAP-project