On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:29:07 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) Vadim Zeitlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
VZ> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 18:11:18 +0200 (CEST) Michele Ravani VZ> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: VZ> VZ> MR> Anyway, Xavier was saying that he could reproduce and that the VZ> patch was VZ> MR> fixing the problem. Isn't this enough? Or are there disadvantages VZ> in VZ> MR> applying the patch? VZ> VZ> The main/only one is that I'd like to have as few changes in the VZ> c-client VZ> code as possible: for example, I'm sure that the bug we're hunting now VZ> is VZ> due to the POP3 header caching patch. I.e. more we patch c-patch, less VZ> we VZ> can ask MRC to fix the bugs we find -- because chances are that they're VZ> ours and not his. So, we are patching the patch? Or are we patching another part of the code to deal with a bug in the original patch? You seem to imply the latter ... I agree that we should try to use 3d party libraries as they come to avoid this type of situations. The only thing that kind of puzzles me is that you weren't able to reproduce the situation with the instructions from Xavier. It looks like we don't have the full picture yet. -- Michele Ravani [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Those who live hoping, die singing" My Gran ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Mahogany-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mahogany-developers
