[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [rmail-mbox-branch]: expunge

From: Kim F. Storm
Subject: Re: [rmail-mbox-branch]: expunge
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:23:58 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <address@hidden> writes:

>    > [I wouldn't recommened merging this back into trunk by a long
>    >  shot, it is far to broken]
>    It seems that the new rmail-mbox-branch code is quite far from
>    'production quality' so IMHO it is not ready for inclusion in 21.4.
> I'm kinda curious if anyone actually used the rmail-mbox-branch
> before...  I was hoping that it would only contain minor bugs, but it
> contains some quite serious bugs (eating my mail is serious, not even
> being able to run it is serious since it means that it hasn't been
> even tested!).
>    Do we really need to postpone the release of 21.4 just for this one
>    feature?  Can't it wait until 22.1 ?
> To me as a user of rmail, I would really prefer it to wait for 22.1.
> Right now it is far to broken, if there were more people that could
> actualy help out and test it and send patches, then just maybe.  Even
> if I said that one shouldn't merge that branch into trunk, maybe that
> would be one good way to force people who use rmail to actually use it
> and fix it right now and get it ready for 21.4; but I don't know what
> the current status of the tree is right now.
> And anyway, the babyl format has been used for such a long time that
> postponing this feature until 22.1, 23.1 or even 100.1 won't do any
> harm anyway.
> Those are just my opionions as a user of rmail and emacs; feel free to
> ignore them completely.

I think your opinion (based on actual experience with using the code)
is very important (to me at least :-) as it clearly expresses the
concern I have had (and expressed) for some time regarding the mbox

Unless we are 99.9% confident that the new mbox-rmail works as good
the the current babyl-rmail, releasing 21.4 with a broken/deficient
mbox-rmail would be a disaster!

Your findings indicates to me that we are far from those 99.9% ...

And as you say, babyl has done the job fine for MANY years, so what's
wrong using it a little longer (1-2 years isn't long in emacs
development :-)

Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]