Leo sdl@gmail.com writes:
On 2011-04-04 10:31 +0800, Matt Lundin wrote:
When my updates of BBDB were in a pre-alpha stage and I did not yet
have a detailed roadmap where they would take me, I thought that
there was really not much of a point trying to continuously (at each
intermediate
On Mon Apr 4 2011 Leo wrote:
I personally think it would be far more productive to worry about
backward compatibility later on. For example, we could add a new
org-bbdb3 module to org mode and leave the old as it is.
While I do not know any details of how BBDB is hooked into /
interfacing org
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 08:52:27 -0400 Matt Lundin m...@imapmail.org wrote:
ML I do think it can be productive right now, while development is moving
ML quickly, to ask whether some of the changes, such as reversing the
ML parameters of bbdb-split, are necessary, since they are easier to fix
ML now
Roland Winkler wink...@gnu.org writes:
On Mon Apr 4 2011 Leo wrote:
I personally think it would be far more productive to worry about
backward compatibility later on. For example, we could add a new
org-bbdb3 module to org mode and leave the old as it is.
While I do not know any details of
