[Kde-pim] Permission to forward port "folder white listing" from Enterprise branch to 3.5

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Thomas McGuire wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday 12 March 2008, Allen Winter wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 March 2008 01:39:05 Pradeepto K. Bhattacharya wrote:
> > > Hi Allen, PIMsters,
> > >
> > >           Last week, I merged in a folder white listing from
> > > Proko2 branch into Enterprise branch ( Revision 783244 and 783478
> > > ). Seeking permission for merging the same into the 3.5 branch.
> > >
> > >           Cheers!
> >
> > Thomas,
> >
> > Let me know if you are ok with this feature.
> > If so, I will take it to the release team for discussion.
> >
> > It sounds partly like a bugfix...
>
> It's for the 3.5 branch, which is not maintained by me. Anyway, some
> things about that feature (I only looked at it very superficially):
>
> - It introduces new strings, the translation teams need to give their
> OK - Coding style like in treebase.cpp makes me cry (all sorts of
> different indentations, including tabs)
> - This feature seems to be only relevant for DIMAP, right? If so, the
> button in the filter dialog should be disabled/removed if there are
> no DIMAP accounts. Also, when selecting source folders, the normal
> IMAP folder items are disabled and not checked, which makes me wonder
> if filtering will still work for my IMAP accounts. Same for my local
> inbox for POP3. Too confusing in my opinion.
> - Very minor: FolderSetSelector::selectedFolders() should be const
> - i18n: "Select Source Folders" should be "Select Source Folders..."
>
> As I said, I didn't yet look at the patch in-depth.

You found a lot of things for not having a close look. I don't know 
whether this is good (as in you are good at finding all problems even 
when not having a close look) or bad (as in if a not-so-close look did 
already reveal that many problems, then how many problems need a closer 
look to be detected).


> For a port to trunk, the above points would need to be fixed.
>
> I assume it is tested in the enterprise branch, so it probably is
> reasonable bug-free to port it to the 3.5 branch. In general, I'm OK
> with it. Ingo, any opinion on this?

Considering the recent corruption of binary attachments which wasn't 
discovered in the enterprise branch for 21 days and was then merged to 
the 3.5 branch makes me very sceptical. As such I don't want any 
feature to be merged to the 3.5 branch which has not been thoroughly 
reviewed and tested. If it has been reviewed and tested, then I'm okay 
with the merge. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to review it 
myself.


Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-pim/attachments/20080312/60a790f7/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
KDE PIM mailing list kde-pim at kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/