Re: [Evolution-hackers] GMail IMAP support in Evolution

2007-10-25 Thread Sankar P
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 10:13 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > I have a feeling, though, that the main reason Evo is so much slower > than Outlook is due to the summary info gathering which (used to?) > grab > all the mailing-list headers as well as the normal stuff in order to > be > able to vfolde

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Let the porting begin

2007-10-25 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 03:25 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 11:58 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > I took a look at the IDLE implementation last night and felt it went > > about it the wrong way. > > Yes, you are right. I think the right fix is to create a new API called >

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Memory leak question in CamelImapCommand

2007-10-25 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:02 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 16:45 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > > > The patch is of course a simple "+ g_ptr_array_free (args, TRUE);" right > > before the "return out;", right? > > > > ps. Adding Jeffrey in CC as I think he has a good idea

Re: [Evolution-hackers] GMail IMAP support in Evolution

2007-10-25 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 17:01 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > Hi Øystein > > On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 13:11 +0200, Øystein Gisnås wrote: > > Google seem to be in the process of introducing IMAP support to GMail > > [1]. Personally I think GMail offers an extremely attractive email > > solution by now

Re: [Evolution-hackers] [Evolution] New version of the Evo SVN Makefile - patch for Debian Etch

2007-10-25 Thread Patrick Ohly
On Di, 2007-10-02 at 18:42 -0400, Paul Smith wrote: > Anyway, if you want a simple way to build Evo from SVN without > rebuilding all of Gnome (as with GARNOME), give it a whirl! > > http://mad-scientist.us/evolution.html Thanks a lot for this, I found it very useful. It did not quite do

[Evolution-hackers] Ubuntu 7.10 upgrade leaves useless libedataserver around

2007-10-25 Thread Patrick Ohly
Hello, I think we have some Evolution packagers around here, so let me draw your attention to a problem that a SyncEvolution user recently had (see [1]). He upgraded to Ubuntu 7.10/Evolution 2.12, but still had a SyncEvolution binary around which depended on the older libedataserver1.2-7 from Evo

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Memory leak question in CamelImapCommand

2007-10-25 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 16:45 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > Hi there, > > t almost sounds impossible but still, and that's why I ask. I noticed > that the variable "args" in imap_command_strdup_vprintf is never freed. > > That would be a rather large memory leak (almost every IMAP command is > cr

[Evolution-hackers] Memory leak question in CamelImapCommand

2007-10-25 Thread Philip Van Hoof
Hi there, t almost sounds impossible but still, and that's why I ask. I noticed that the variable "args" in imap_command_strdup_vprintf is never freed. That would be a rather large memory leak (almost every IMAP command is created this way). So I'm a bit stunned that nobody else ever saw this on

Re: [Evolution-hackers] GMail IMAP support in Evolution

2007-10-25 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
One thing you could do which would be of use would be to sniff the packets that Outlook sends to Google Mail's IMAP and log them for the Evolution developers to read so that perhaps they can see what queries Outlook is doing that is so much faster than what Evolution is doing and maybe try to mimic