We should schedule a meeting to discuss actions. We must decide on what to do, who does it and when it should be done.
Proposal: Wed. 11.07.2008 - 22:00 GMT.
Any objections?
On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 17:06 +0200, Stephan Erb wrote:
I am of the opinion that we should remove code from gajim if we know that it is not fully functional.
Removing should be preferred over disabling it because we can never be sure that there aren't any uncaught side effects. It may also happen that some user enable it and report bugs in other areas (yes, code is that coupled) and we are unable to easily reproduce it.
After removal the patches could be applied to separate branches. Users who really want it can use it and we make sure that the patch doesn't get lost.
On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 12:55 +0200, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Stephan Erb steve-e@h3c.de wrote:
When I look at gajim, I see the following broken windows:
- OSX integration
It's totally broken and I'm for reverting it and doing it from scratch.
See above.
- OTR-Encryption
We can keep that in trunk and just remove the line that loads the OTR module before release. It's possible that we get it fixed, but I really doubt it,
See explanation above.
- GPG-Encryption
What's broken about GPG? Never had any issues with it.
I was not precise enough here. It is working but the implementation is very complex, so no refactoring for 0.12 is planned.
But you forgot the biggest breakage: Session centric.
I am OK with session centric and think we should definitely keep it. Things are shaping up and I haven't seen any big breakage in the last days. (Even unit tests are coming).
Best Regards, steve-e
Gajim-devel mailing list Gajim-devel@gajim.org https://lists.gajim.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/gajim-devel