On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 08:53 +0800, Not Zed wrote: >On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 14:02 -0700, JP Rosevear wrote: >>On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 09:32 +0800, Not Zed wrote: >>>On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 17:19 -0700, JP Rosevear wrote: >>>>On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 10:34 +0800, Not Zed wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I don't see how any such patch could possibly work very well, so i >>>>> wouldn't get too excited about it. >>>> >>>>Why not? As noted the main thing is the two separate camel sessions. >>> >>>Yes, two separate camel sessions. Thats certainly a show-stopper for >>>this 'working very well', don't you think? >> >>Umm, yes, and thats a) why its not in and b) what I originally stated >>several messages ago. I thought you were implying there was some >>additional major issue that I had not already covered. > >Well i dont think that was made very clear, i.e. that not sharing the >camel session is a critical shortcomming. > >I didn't want the sun engineers or redhat engineers getting all excited >and trying install the patch, when it wouldn't work too well! Thats >all!
Understood. Is it feasible to look at sharing the camel session in 2.4 or is this best left a dead issue for now? -JP -- JP Rosevear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Novell, Inc. _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
