> So why not push this to the official ISPDB first. Because the patch was rejected :-) . Also, this needs to ship in TB first, because it affects existing clients. > Why do you need a new patch if the current one already works assuming it is fed the correct data? That was the only complaint from Magnus (quote): This doesn't really fix this bug. From how I understood Magnus, he was opposed to the idea of the approach, not the fact that he tried my patch and it failed. Magnus is dead-set on attempting IMAP first, even if this fails in most cases and also gives sub-par user experience.
Bug 1592258 Comment 29 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
> So why not push this to the official ISPDB first. Because the patch was rejected :-) . Changing the ISPDB would only make sense, if this patch is accepted and ship. Also, this should ship in TB first, because it affects existing clients. > Why do you need a new patch if the current one already works assuming it is fed the correct data? That was the only complaint from Magnus (quote): This doesn't really fix this bug. From how I understood Magnus, he was opposed to the idea of the approach, not the fact that he tried my patch and it failed. Magnus is dead-set on attempting IMAP first, even if this fails in most cases and also gives sub-par user experience.
> So why not push this to the official ISPDB first. Because the patch was rejected :-) . Changing the ISPDB would only make sense, if this patch is accepted and shipped. > Why do you need a new patch if the current one already works assuming it is fed the correct data? That was the only complaint from Magnus (quote): This doesn't really fix this bug. From how I understood Magnus, he was opposed to the idea of the approach, not the fact that he tried my patch and it failed. Magnus is dead-set on attempting IMAP first, even if this fails in most cases and also gives sub-par user experience.
> So why not push this to the official ISPDB first. Because the patch was rejected :-) . Changing the ISPDB would only make sense, if this patch is accepted and shipped. > Why do you need a new patch if the current one already works assuming it is fed the correct data? That was the only complaint from Magnus (quote): This doesn't really fix this bug. From how I understood Magnus, he was opposed to the idea of the approach, not the fact that he tried my patch and it failed. Magnus is dead-set on attempting IMAP first, even if this fails in most cases and also gives sub-par user experience (no contacts, calendar etc.pp.).
> So why not push this to the official ISPDB first. Because the patch was rejected :-) . Changing the ISPDB would only make sense, if this patch is accepted and shipped. > Why do you need a new patch if the current one already works assuming it is fed the correct data? That was the only complaint from Magnus (quote): This doesn't really fix this bug. From how I understood Magnus, he was opposed to the idea of the approach, not the fact that he tried my patch and it failed. Magnus is dead-set on attempting IMAP first, even if this fails in most cases and also gives sub-par user experience (no calendar etc.pp.).