On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 12:08 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> When is 3.2 expected?
September 28th, as per https://live.gnome.org/ThreePointOne#Schedule
andre
--
mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper | http://www.openismus.com
___
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 11:42 +0200, Thomas Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 25.08.2011, 11:31 +0200 schrieb Andre Klapper:
> > On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 07:12 +0200, Thomas Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > > Why don't you try 3.1.5 which just became available?
> >
> > PLEASE ALWAYS mention that 3.1.5 is
Am Donnerstag, den 25.08.2011, 11:31 +0200 schrieb Andre Klapper:
> On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 07:12 +0200, Thomas Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > Why don't you try 3.1.5 which just became available?
>
> PLEASE ALWAYS mention that 3.1.5 is an unstable release. It's not fair
> to make average users guinea pigs
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 07:12 +0200, Thomas Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Why don't you try 3.1.5 which just became available?
PLEASE ALWAYS mention that 3.1.5 is an unstable release. It's not fair
to make average users guinea pigs by not even warning them.
andre
--
mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed
http://bl
Am Mittwoch, den 24.08.2011, 08:34 +0200 schrieb Svante Signell:
> Hi,
>
> After having a lot of problems with earlier 2.x versions of evo (some
> still not yet solved), at least it was semi-stable.
>
> Now we are faced with 3.0. And of course it crashes, see e.g. Debian bug
> report #638936.
W
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 10:46 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 08:34 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > After having a lot of problems with earlier 2.x versions of evo (some
> > still not yet solved), at least it was semi-stable.
> >
> > Now we are faced with 3.0. And of co
Hi,
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 08:34 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> After having a lot of problems with earlier 2.x versions of evo (some
> still not yet solved), at least it was semi-stable.
>
> Now we are faced with 3.0. And of course it crashes, see e.g. Debian bug
> report #638936.
Upstream deve
Hi,
After having a lot of problems with earlier 2.x versions of evo (some
still not yet solved), at least it was semi-stable.
Now we are faced with 3.0. And of course it crashes, see e.g. Debian bug
report #638936. In the past filing a bug report to bugzilla was not much
helpful, but maybe that c
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 11:11 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 11:43 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:02 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > > I have a neat little script which I use to get stack
> > > traces:
> >
> > Good stuff! I modified it to just displ
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 11:43 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:02 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > I have a neat little script which I use to get stack
> > traces:
>
> Good stuff! I modified it to just display the output on stdout, then I
> can put it where I want it by hand.
>
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 11:43 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:02 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > I have a neat little script which I use to get stack
> > traces:
>
> Good stuff! I modified it to just display the output on stdout, then I
> can put it where I want it by hand.
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:02 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> I have a neat little script which I use to get stack
> traces:
Good stuff! I modified it to just display the output on stdout, then I
can put it where I want it by hand.
Just a note: if you add "set pagination off" to your GDB script,
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 16:57 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 16:00 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I'm not familiar with apport. Is this an Ubuntu thing?
>
> It is. As you can see in the script though, that that is only required
> if you give my script a
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 16:00 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> Actually, I'm not familiar with apport. Is this an Ubuntu thing?
It is. As you can see in the script though, that that is only required
if you give my script a /var/crash/ file. If you really wanted to, you
could simply remove th
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:49 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:02 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 16:00 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > >
> > > Description:
> > > Description of problem:
> > > Several times a day evoluti
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:02 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 16:00 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> >
> > Description:
> > Description of problem:
> > Several times a day evolution freezes, doesn't respond to
> input or
> > refresh its window.
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 15:02 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> These types of problems almost always require a stack trace of the
> hung-up process. I have a neat little script which I use to get stack
> traces:
Thanks. Evolution has just hung, and I have put the script to use.
jon
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 12:52 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:47 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:59 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > In this case that's right. In fact now that I've had some sleep I'd
> > > recommend the OP to take a loo
> "Devels" know about the bugs I am reporting. I really don't think lack
> of bug reporting is the issue here. What appears (granted, from the
> outside, so I only have one view) to be at issue here -- and Evolution
> is not really any different than most other projects -- is that the
> attractio
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 16:00 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>
> Description:
> Description of problem:
> Several times a day evolution freezes, doesn't respond to input or
> refresh its window. Generally, if I click on the window decoration to
> delete the w
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 17:09 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> I've seen occasional hangs with 2.26.3
Admittedly I am only using 2.26.1 (with a couple of patches from
subsequent releases) but that's because nothing in any of the bugs that
I have open indicate that a newer version will cure mai
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:47 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:59 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > In this case that's right. In fact now that I've had some sleep I'd
> > recommend the OP to take a look at
> > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=570438 since it's
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 12:50 -0400, Ben May wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:47 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:59 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > In this case that's right. In fact now that I've had some sleep I'd
> > > recommend the OP to take a look at
>
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:47 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:59 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > In this case that's right. In fact now that I've had some sleep I'd
> > recommend the OP to take a look at
> > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=570438 since it
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 09:59 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> In this case that's right. In fact now that I've had some sleep I'd
> recommend the OP to take a look at
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=570438 since it's an
> LDAP-related problem I reported in February which Srini gave m
> If this is really not configurable, you're using a buggy and wrong MTA.
> I have noticed this on my BB as well and I haven't looked into the
> configuration to see but I make it a personal note not to reply to lists on
> my BB for this reason.
I use SnapperMail on a Palm OS device, it seems to
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 04:39 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 01:57 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 00:48 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > > Most importantly, you MUST always describe your environment
> > > completely:
> > > for Evo in particular this means wh
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 01:57 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 00:48 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > Most importantly, you MUST always describe your environment
> > completely:
> > for Evo in particular this means what type of email are you reading?
> > Local spool? POP/POP3?
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 00:48 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> Most importantly, you MUST always describe your environment
> completely:
> for Evo in particular this means what type of email are you reading?
> Local spool? POP/POP3? IMAP? Exchange using the old
> evolution-exchange backend? Exchange us
Please don't reply to digests.
1- The Subject is meaningless unless you edit it (see above)
2- It breaks the threading
3- In many cases (though not this time) clueless users quote the entire
digest in order to reply to one message.
Note that you can post via Gmane if you don't want to subscribe i
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 16:21 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > Also, when mentioning a BZ report here on the list it's conventional to
> > give the bug number (or better, the URL of the BZ page) in case someone
> > wants to add anything.
>
> Also quite right. It's bug 528393.
> https://bugz
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 18:36 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 16:00 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 17:09 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > Have you reported them? Don't assume the devels know that there's a
> > > problem, and don't just report
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 16:00 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 17:09 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > Have you reported them? Don't assume the devels know that there's a
> > problem, and don't just report it here as most devels don't read the
> > list.
>
> Well, I did it.
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 17:09 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Have you reported them? Don't assume the devels know that there's a
> problem, and don't just report it here as most devels don't read the
> list.
Well, I did it. Now I feel like an idiot. Briefly the description
is "Evolution free
On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 13:10 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 09:28 +, Philipp Kubina wrote:
> > I am working with Evolution for a month now (Ubuntu 9.04, Evolution
> > 2.26.1) and the instability is terrible (multiple crashes every day).
>
> I too have had chronic stabili
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 09:28 +, Philipp Kubina wrote:
> I am working with Evolution for a month now (Ubuntu 9.04, Evolution
> 2.26.1) and the instability is terrible (multiple crashes every day).
I too have had chronic stability problems with Evolution, namely
evolution-2.26.3 running under Fed
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 15:01 -0400, Reid Thompson wrote:
> if you recall offhand the steps, i'd appreciate a quick posting of how
> to configure it to work the old way.. if you have to think more than
> a min for the steps don't bother, i'll figure it out/google it
No problem. It's a bit non-obvi
> My understanding is that the RPM based distros like newer Fedoras have
> also figured out how to get this kind of stability, for the most part; I
> don't use them so I can't say.
A long time ago. Package management on all current mainstream
distributions is equivalent. You can practically use
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 11:12 -0700, bg wrote:
> Athlon 2.6 with 1Gb RAM, 160Gb RAID Level 1 array.
>
would work fine for ubuntu or gentoo depending on what effort you want
to put into your distro
___
Evolution-list mailing list
Evolution-list@gnome.org
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 14:50 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> Anyway, FYI nothing happens _automatically_; what happens is when
> there
> are packages available for upgrade you get an icon in your
> notification
> area[*] which you can select to open the update manager. You can then
> choose whether to i
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 11:12 -0700, bg wrote:
> > what specs does your box have?
>
> Athlon 2.6 with 1Gb RAM, 160Gb RAID Level 1 array.
>
> I've been experimenting with Ubuntu 8.10 on another machine.
> One of the things that both looks attractive about Ubuntu,
> and also generates a bit of appreh
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 09:22, Reid Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 09:03:18AM -0700, bg wrote:
> >
> > Older than dirt - Core2.
> >
> > It's pretty stable, though. The only real problem that's beginning
> > to get annoying is the Mozilla 1.7 browser, with the increasing
> > number of we
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 12:22:15PM -0400, Reid Thompson wrote:
> And the make scripts provided by
> Paul/others makes running from git ( if you have the desire ) fairly
^
evolution
> straightforward.
_
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 09:03:18AM -0700, bg wrote:
>
> Older than dirt - Core2.
>
> It's pretty stable, though. The only real problem that's beginning
> to get annoying is the Mozilla 1.7 browser, with the increasing
> number of web pages it refuses to read, even with as late a
> vintage plug-i
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 18:09 -0700, bg wrote:
> > Maybe my version of Evo is
> > too ancient (a distinct possibility)
Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Wow .. you're using "Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2)" !!
> I didn't known it was possible to still use such an ancient beast. How
> old is your linux dis
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:48 -0700, David L wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:08 AM, bg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 08:12, Ben May wrote:
> >
> > Likewise. I can't believe there are so many people who think you
> > have to "reconfigure" an email program in order to move the cursor
> > anywhere
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 11:23 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > The way most emailers default in the reply edit mode is to position
> > your cursor at the top of the original. The reason this is done
> > is apparently, unaccountably, non-obvious to millions of the
> > NetNewbies of the past sever
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 18:09 -0700, bg wrote:
> Maybe my version of Evo is
> too ancient (a distinct possibility)
Wow .. you're using "Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2)" !!
I didn't known it was possible to still use such an ancient beast. How
old is your linux distro ?
Xav
_
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 18:09 -0700, bg wrote:
>
> Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
>
> > I've found that for multi-part messages, if instead of clicking
> > 'Reply' (or 'Reply to all'), you select the text of the message and then
> > click the appropriate button, it replies properly to the text, meaning
> > no do
> > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:48, David L wrote:
> > > This only happens with
> > > certain emails... these emails get a little dotted box around
> > > the text of the original message whenever I click anywhere
> > > in the message. Any ideas?
> >
> > bg:
> >
> > I wish I knew an answer to that,
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 10:02 -0700, bg wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:48, David L wrote:
> > This only happens with
> > certain emails... these emails get a little dotted box around
> > the text of the original message whenever I click anywhere
> > in the message. Any ideas?
>
> bg:
>
> I wish
>
> In all seriousness though, in the last year or so, evolution
> won't let me position the cursor in the middle of a
> reply and hit return without making it look like my
> inserted text is part of the original message... ie, it adds
> a ">" at the beginning of each line so I can't interleave
>
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:48, David L wrote:
> This only happens with
> certain emails... these emails get a little dotted box around
> the text of the original message whenever I click anywhere
> in the message. Any ideas?
bg:
I wish I knew an answer to that, but I doubt there is one.
As near as
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:08 AM, bg wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 08:12, Ben May wrote:
>
> Likewise. I can't believe there are so many people who think you
> have to "reconfigure" an email program in order to move the cursor
> anywhere you want :-)
In all seriousness though, in the last year or s
Hi Charles,
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:22 -0600, Charles J Killian wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Oh please!
>
> Piss off!
>
> The day that how one formats a response to an email is some measure of
> the quality of the individual writing it and the value of that resp
Brewster Gillett:
> > The way most emailers default in the reply edit mode is to position
> > your cursor at the top of the original. The reason this is done
> > is apparently, unaccountably, non-obvious to millions of the
> > NetNewbies of the past several years. The reason it positions that
> >
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 08:22, Charles J Killian wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Oh please!
>
> Piss off!
>
> The day that how one formats a response to an email is some measure of
> the quality of the individual writing it and the value of that response
> is the day I
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 08:12, Ben May wrote:
> I have to say - this thread has given me more laughs than any I've
> gotten from a mailing list since I used to be on the EDM one back in the
> late 90s. Bravo!
bg:
Likewise. I can't believe there are so many people who think you
have to "reconfigure"
> > yellow pads are not acceptable, only white or off-white will be
> > considered valid forms of communication.
> evolution's yellow-pad-connector crashes too frequently.
Oh, Oh Tomboy integration! Sweet.
I'm not worried, it will never crash for me. For whatever reason
[seriously] my syste
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 08:42:57AM -0700, David L wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Reid Thompson wrote:
> > yellow pads are not acceptable, only white or off-white will be
> > considered valid forms of communication.
>
> evolution's yellow-pad-connector crashes too frequently.
> That probl
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Reid Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:22 -0600, Charles J Killian wrote:
>> The day that how one formats a response to an email is some measure of
>> the quality of the individual writing it and the value of that
>> response
>> is the day I go back to a ye
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 11:28 -0400, Reid Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:22 -0600, Charles J Killian wrote:
> > Oh please!
> > Piss off!
> > The day that how one formats a response to an email is some measure of
> > the quality of the individual writing it and the value of that
> > respon
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:22 -0600, Charles J Killian wrote:
> Oh please!
>
> Piss off!
>
> The day that how one formats a response to an email is some measure of
> the quality of the individual writing it and the value of that
> response
> is the day I go back to a yellow pad and pencil.
>
> Yik
> The way most emailers default in the reply edit mode is to position
> your cursor at the top of the original. The reason this is done
> is apparently, unaccountably, non-obvious to millions of the
> NetNewbies of the past several years. The reason it positions that
> way is to encourage the user
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oh please!
Piss off!
The day that how one formats a response to an email is some measure of
the quality of the individual writing it and the value of that response
is the day I go back to a yellow pad and pencil.
Yikes!
Chuck...
bg wrote:
> On Thu
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 07:15 -0700, Dave Jewett wrote:
> Bug 550414 has been a problem since 2.24;
I don't deny there is a problem but something specific is causing it to
manifest for you as I use 2.24 all day every day and have never seen
that error.
Ah! It is a POP3 and/or Trash bug, never mi
I have to say - this thread has given me more laughs than any I've
gotten from a mailing list since I used to be on the EDM one back in the
late 90s. Bravo!
-
Benjamin May
Sr. Research Analyst
+(212) 851-4772
ma...@columbia.edu
___
Evolution-list
Not sure why you state that this is not allowed
-- See remainder of post sent via Tbird at bottom.
Dave Jewett wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback.
>
> I am using Thunderbird. It has a method to configure for either top or
> bottom post on replies. But the placement of the configuration option
>
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 09:28 +, Philipp Kubina wrote:
> I am working with Evolution for a month now (Ubuntu 9.04, Evolution
> 2.26.1) and the instability is terrible (multiple crashes every day).
Unfortunately Ubuntu 9.04 uses a quite old version of Evolution 2.26
(namely 2.26.1).
However t
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 07:15, Dave Jewett wrote:
> I apologize for the top post. Most of the world top posts;
bg:
Which simply demonstrates that the world is mostly made up
of the clueless and care-less.
dave:
> and I could not immediate find the section of my email client
> to reconfigure it
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 07:15 -0700, Dave Jewett wrote:
> I apologize for the top post. Most of the world top posts; and I
> could
> not immediate find the section of my email client to reconfigure it
> for
> this specific email.
The page down or arrow down button should move your cursor to the b
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:04 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 07:00 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > Obviously there is, the Bonobo-free branch was just trunked. I imagine
> > [don't know] that such infrastructure work consumed a fair amount of
> > resources.
>
> It did: a
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 10:07 -0400, B. Joshua Rosen wrote:
> Version 2.22 crashes once a day on Fedora 9, it's not just an Ubuntu
> problem.
[Once again: please don't top-post on this list]
Maybe you should update Fedora. You do realize that F9 is no longer
supported don't you? I use Evo 2.26.3 o
Bug 550414 has been a problem since 2.24; and is still a problem in
2.27. It is an absolute show stopper, and it has caused me to move off
of Evolution.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550414
I apologize for the top post. Most of the world top posts; and I could
not immediate find
t; Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:56 AM
> To: Chenthill
> Cc: evolution-list
> Subject: Re: [Evolution] stability
>
>
> I hope the vfolders fix is a priority, it's a complete show stopper for
> any user who has a large number of stored messages. When can we expect a
>
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 07:00 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> Obviously there is, the Bonobo-free branch was just trunked. I imagine
> [don't know] that such infrastructure work consumed a fair amount of
> resources.
It did: a full year, off and on.
Also, we've suffered a significant loss of m
-Original Message-
From: evolution-list-boun...@gnome.org
[mailto:evolution-list-boun...@gnome.org]on Behalf Of B. Joshua Rosen
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:56 AM
To: Chenthill
Cc: evolution-list
Subject: Re: [Evolution] stability
I hope the vfolders fix is a priority, it
I hope the vfolders fix is a priority, it's a complete show stopper for
any user who has a large number of stored messages. When can we expect a
fix?
Josh
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 12:09 +0530, Chenthill wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 00:54 -0400, B. Joshua Rosen wrote:
> > Evolution has been essenti
El mié, 07-10-2009 a las 09:28 +, Philipp Kubina escribió:
> I am working with Evolution for a month now (Ubuntu 9.04, Evolution
> 2.26.1) and the instability is terrible (multiple crashes every day).
> Looking at the bug reports from other users I can see that I am not the
> only one having
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 00:54 -0400, B. Joshua Rosen wrote:
> Evolution has been essentially unusable for almost a year. I'm still on
> Fedora 9 because it has Evolution 2.22 which is the last working
> release, they wemt to SQLite after that which completely broke the
> virtual folders.
I'm using
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 00:54 -0400, B. Joshua Rosen wrote:
> Evolution has been essentially unusable for almost a year. I'm still on
> Fedora 9 because it has Evolution 2.22 which is the last working
> release, they wemt to SQLite after that which completely broke the
> virtual folders.
>
> Are th
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 00:54 -0400, B. Joshua Rosen wrote:
> Evolution has been essentially unusable for almost a year. I'm still on
> Fedora 9 because it has Evolution 2.22 which is the last working
> release, they wemt to SQLite after that which completely broke the
> virtual folders.
>
> Are th
Evolution has been essentially unusable for almost a year. I'm still on
Fedora 9 because it has Evolution 2.22 which is the last working
release, they wemt to SQLite after that which completely broke the
virtual folders.
Are there any developers still working on Evolution? I can't understand
how
I am working with Evolution for a month now (Ubuntu 9.04, Evolution
2.26.1) and the instability is terrible (multiple crashes every day).
Looking at the bug reports from other users I can see that I am not the
only one having problems with evolution's stability. Honestly I can not
understand how th
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 13:36, P Sankar wrote:
> The IMAP performance patch was committed on April 21. I guess it should
> be there from 2.7.1 onwards.
Great news. Can't wait to try it.
Thanks,
Xav
___
Evolution-list mailing list
Evolution-list
The IMAP performance patch was committed on April 21. I guess it should
be there from 2.7.1 onwards.
Sankar
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:36 +, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 13:16, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
> > > Evolutions biggest problem is speed - it takes literally mi
Hi,
Please check if you are facing the issue as bug
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=339827 . If so you could apply
the patch attached with the bug.
thanks, Chenthill.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 10:18 +0100, William Murray wrote:
> > nd other assertions that just makes everything run slowe
> Please note I did say MY dad (not all dads), meaning my dad does not
> know about all these issues in the background that makes everything
> work, he just wants to read email, like all of us really,
> so to rephrase, "Its to unstable to have my limited-computer-illiterate
> dad use it"
> Better?
> > Evolution is a great product and meets a definite need on my desktop.
> > Yay!
> >
> > But its crashiness makes it nearly unusable. It's seemed to got worse
> > in the last few months; I don't know why.
> >
> > Is there a faq
Hi,
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 13:16, Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
> > Evolutions biggest problem is speed - it takes literally minutes from
> > clicking the button to being able to read mails.
> The IMAP performance has improved considerably after the change not to
> fetch all the headers was put in.
Bill,
> Hello Harish,
> Fedora 5 has evolution-2.6.1-1.fc5.2, and
> evolution-connector-2.6.1-1.fc5.1, and reliability is
> big improvement on 2.4 series. The only thing which crashes much
> for me is to do with deleting shared meetings in the calendar.
IIRC, Chen fixed a bunch of
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 10:18 +0100, William Murray wrote:
> > nd other assertions that just makes everything run slower.
> > > >
> > > >But yes its to unstable at the moment to have my dad use it.
> > > >
> > > >Sorry, had to get that off my chest.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I have muc
> nd other assertions that just makes everything run slower.
> > >
> > >But yes its to unstable at the moment to have my dad use it.
> > >
> > >Sorry, had to get that off my chest.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I have much the same issues; only on Fedora-5. This is with Exchange 2003.
> > Evolutio
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:56 +0100, William John Murray wrote:
> >like this error this morning:
> >---
> >
> >(evolution-exchange-storage:14260): evolution-exchange-storage-CRITICAL
> >**: e_folder_exchange_search_start: assertion `E_IS_FOLDER_EXCHANGE
> >(folder)' failed
> >
> >---
> >C
top.
> > > Yay!
> > >
> > > But its crashiness makes it nearly unusable. It's seemed to got worse
> > > in the last few months; I don't know why.
> > >
> > > Is there a faq on evolution stability? A wiki? Any such unofficial
> > >
like this error this morning:
---
(evolution-exchange-storage:14260): evolution-exchange-storage-CRITICAL
**: e_folder_exchange_search_start: assertion `E_IS_FOLDER_EXCHANGE
(folder)' failed
---
Can only start Evol again when killing all evol processes and restarting
them by hand.
sable. It's seemed to got worse
> > in the last few months; I don't know why.
> >
> > Is there a faq on evolution stability? A wiki? Any such unofficial
> > documentation on keeping-it-running?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bill m
> >
>
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 09:22 -0500, Bill Milbratz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Evolution is a great product and meets a definite need on my desktop.
> Yay!
>
> But its crashiness makes it nearly unusable. It's seemed to got worse
> in the last few months; I don't know why.
&
Hi,
Evolution is a great product and meets a definite need on my desktop.
Yay!
But its crashiness makes it nearly unusable. It's seemed to got worse
in the last few months; I don't know why.
Is there a faq on evolution stability? A wiki? Any such unofficial
documentation on keeping-
99 matches
Mail list logo
