kdenetwork/kmail

[Michael Häckel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 18 September 2002 10:18, Don Sanders wrote:
>
> Just saying I'm allowed to fork is not sufficient action for me to
> consider my offer accepted.
>
> I don't consider my offer accepted until the KMail2 package and its
> dependencies have been accepted into cvs, preferable into kde-pim so
> that I can work on it, that's what I mean by "work on KMail2".

You didn't say this in your initial mail. Anyway you know yourself, that I
can't offer this to you.

> It seems we can't come to an agreement regarding my zero-copy parsing
> patch, and I consider that a fix for a grave bug and a security flaw
> and a patch that merits a fork if it is not accepted.
>
> Now many people have asked that I wait until KDE 3.1 is released
> before I fork proper so that's what I would like to do, wait until
> KDE 3.1 is released.

Again: I don't care about your fork. Do what you like.

However I don't accept this for the maintainer discussion. You change your 
opinion daily. Yesterday you said you want to have this issue resolved within 
a week. If this is delayed again, even more time is wasted in further such 
useless discussions.

Well, you promised to not make any changes to KMail/HEAD until this is 
resolved, but you already broke your last promise which was to not commit any 
changes to KMail/HEAD that are against general agreement with your about box 
change. Therefore I don't trust you.

Regards,
Michael Häckel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9iJZ6e9KEPyN2R8URAp7pAJ9AepKpg6bKIu3cdNLFD12EforyugCfcjah
AhqAjUEMi80JA3JZE2nD/9o=
=YIUW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----