Re: [Chandler-dev] Bug fixes to consider putting in 1.0

So my 2 cents....

I would really like to get 1.0 out this week since I worry about it  
dragging on. I also think we should stick to our policy of fixing  
blocker bugs only at this stage. That being said, if the fixes are low  
risk and Grant feels fine with them, I am supportive of adding them in.

It seems like the first 2 items are pretty trivial but I worry about  
the CALDAV fix. For us to come out and publicize that I would want it  
to be tested pretty thoroughly and we would have to spend some extra  
time on this. I am pretty confident there will be a 1.1 soon and I  
don't think it will be a missed opportunity to publicize this soon  
after 1.0 when we have people's attention. So in summary, I guess I  
would feel better putting this in 1.1.

Cheers,
Sheila

On Jul 30, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Jeffrey Harris wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> With Grant returning tomorrow, I wanted to start a conversation  
> about whether we should spin a 1.0rc2, and what bug fixes should go  
> in.
>
> Sheila mentioned that she'd like Grant to make the decision about  
> what's safe to go in and what's not, which sounds good to me.
>
> I do think we probably should spin an rc2, although I know we'd  
> really like to ship 1.0.  Here are my nominations for fixes to put in:
>
>
> Outlook fix - https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12262
>
> Emails from Chandler with empty bodies are, in some variety of  
> Microsoft mail clients, displaying our theoretically hidden EIM  
> payload.  This isn't a big deal but it's ugly, and the fix is a very  
> safe addition of a bit of whitespace.
>
>
> URL fix - https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12256
>
> The recent URL detection code didn't work with URLs that stretched  
> over multiple lines.  My fix to find multi-line-URLs unfortunately  
> has a flaw: if a URL appears on the first line, all whitespace after  
> the item body is seen as matching that first line, which makes for a  
> disconcertingly large click target for that url (and makes it hard  
> to edit the body if it happens to contain just a url and nothing  
> else).
>
> This is also only a minor annoyance, but a very safe fix.
>
>
> Google CalDAV - https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12278
>
> Google's first public stab at CalDAV support has a lot of  
> idiosyncrasies.  Fortunately none of them are terribly onerous.
>
> This isn't the safest change, but it mostly affects CalDAV code,  
> which clearly hasn't gotten heavy use lately or someone would've  
> pointed out it's been broken for recurrence for the last year!
>
> I personally think we should do our damnedest to be the first  
> shipping CalDAV client that actually works with Google CalDAV.   
> Seems like there's a lot of buzz now, it sure would be nice to ride  
> it, alongside our 1.0 release.  But it would also be reasonable to  
> delay the patch for a 1.0.1 or something like that.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jeffrey
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev