kloecker at kde.org
Thu Sep 19 19:49:52 BST 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thursday 19 September 2002 04:26, Neil Stevens wrote:
> I think that development process is a critical issue that is
> absolutely worth a fork. It's nice to sit and talk all day about
> what plan you agree on, but the fact is KMail has always lagged
> behind the rest of KDE and behind user expectations:
> * It lagged in the use of kio, to the detriment of users who needed
> SMTP auth.
> * It lagged behind in the use of kaddressbook, hindering users who
> needed a common address book.
I don't know what you are talking about. KMail is using the KDE
addressbook since when 2.0? 2.1?
> * It long lagged behind in IMAP support, I'm told.
Because only one single person was bold enough to work on it.
> * It now lags behind in the use of KParts and interfaces like
> KTextEditor, hindering developers who want to reuse code and users
> who want to customize their desktop.
All of this is simply the result of too few developers with two few
spare time. None of this happened on purpose or because we stopped
someone from making these improvements.
> It's this lag, and the resulting frustration from people who tried to
> alleviate that lag only to see their patches dismissed, that I think
> Aaron was referring to.
We never dismissed any such patches. The only patch that didn't make it
into KMail for a too long time was the KMail-Kicker-applet-patch. But
that's only a nice new feature but not something which is crucial for a
> But now, finally, we have a maintainer willing to break that pattern,
> and as a KMail user and once would-be contributor, I'm glad to see
> it. Now I'm disappointed that both he and the HEAD maintainer seem
> so much more interested in politics than code, but I'm hopeful that
> in the end that we'll have two productively developed KMails.
I'm pretty sure that there won't be two KMails.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the kde-core-devel