[kdepim-users] [KDE/Mac] Usenet/GMane users and the (lack of) future of KNode
René J.V. Bertin
rjvbertin at gmail.com
Fri Feb 12 10:07:25 GMT 2016
On Thursday February 11 2016 13:18:38 Daniel Vrátil wrote:
>It certainly wasn't a single person who decided that. We agreed on dropping
>KNode on one of the sprints, because neither of us felt like having the
>resources to maintain and work on KNode.
Well that's a relief ... but ...
>or we focus on the majority of our users
Has there been a survey to get an informed estimate of demand, i.e. of your widely each PIM component is/was used?
I realise it's probably difficult to get that kind of data; in any case if the reactions to this thread are any indication I'm not alone but member of a very "select" club ...
Still, I propose that "we" could start by porting KNode to Qt4, and then take it from there. Once that's done it might be easier to assess how much work porting to KF5 will be, or how much of its code base could be refactored into an NNTP agent. Are any of the "original authors" still active elsewhere, with KF5 business?
I suppose there must be a migration guide somewhere that details the steps required to port from Qt3Support to Qt4 "pure"? (pointers appreciated)
>Implementing the expiration would be the task of an NNTP resource. I don't
>know exactly what the feature in KNode you refer to was (I only used KNode
There are 2: expiration of messages that work much like the corresponding feature in KMail. And there's View/Filter in which you can indicate whether you want to see all threads, only those with "own", unread or new articles, plus a few more options that operate above the thread level.
Those are just visibility filters that determine whether a message (or thread) shows up in the message list.
The advantage of doing this over NNTP is that you don't put any additional load on the IMAP server and client, nor the akonadiserver and database.
More information about the kdepim-users