[PATCH 00/13] Re: imaplib2/IDLE again
nicolas.s-dev at laposte.net
Sat Mar 12 12:27:10 GMT 2011
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 08:25:27PM +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 04:04:33AM -0500, Ethan Glasser-Camp wrote:
> > On 03/09/2011 02:59 AM, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> > >We could merge patches 1-5, which as far as I can see would be the drop
> > >in replacement of imaplib with imaplib2.
> > Yeah, that would be OK. I would also merge 11 and 12, which are
> > niceties that improve robustness.
> I agree with the merge plan but
> ...the topic didn't apply to master at sent time. Against (arbitrary)
> v6.3.2 apply nicely but the topic should be updated against master.
> ...if I apply patches imaplib2 related stuff (patches 1-5, 11 and 12)
> still against arbitrary v6.3.2, I get the following traceback:
I'm stucked by the merge of the imaplib2¹ topic into next.
To be honest, I think I miss knowledge of current code and the logic in
the way both next and imaplib2 diverged. I've tried differents things
but I can't make the result sane and robust enough to publish something.
I see two ways to get this topic merged:
1) Revert conflicting patches from next.
I guess most of my pain comes from the UIDPLUS feature. Should I revert
a commit (not needed anymore) from next before merging imaplib2?
2) Rebase topic on top of next.
Also, since imaplib2 is obviously material for next and since it
conflicts hardly enough with next content you could rebase the topic on
top of next and resend.
What do you think?
1. What I call imaplib2 is the topic including patches 1-5, 11 and 12 as
talked before in this thread. :-)
More information about the OfflineIMAP-project