Wayne Mery (Thunderbird QA)
vseerror at Lehigh.EDU
Thu Jun 27 18:12:26 UTC 2013
On 6/27/2013 12:05 PM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 27/06/13 00:26, Ludovic Hirlimann wrote:
>> Noise and unhappy people can be dealt with. I like Gerv's proposal. -
>> Maybe we should aslo get in touch with the Eudora team before changing
>> the page and retire the bugzilla component.
> The Wikipedia page on Eudora, which seems to have been written by
> disgruntled Eudora users editorializing, suggests that Qualcomm have
> been ignoring all communications regarding Eudora.
Perhaps "editorializing" is reading too much into what is written there.
It is a fact that all communcations stopped dead.
My understanding of the situation is qualcomm decided there would be no
further support, either formal or informal. *Even* to the extent that
there would be no public communcation to users of that fact. Proof of
that is none of the relevant pages were updated to communicate this
"change in direction" after OSE 1.0 was released.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Eudora_Releases ... etc, with the exception of
some info about OS X Lion.
Note the primary citation of  is
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Talk:Penelope which may seem like ranting, but
is primarily comments on the shortcomings of OSE 99% of which were done
well before OSE 1.0 was released. The developers responded to a few
points there but, as is typical of wiki, developers don't feel obliged
to respond to everything.
> We can email the list
> of developers on the wiki page, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.
> Still, perhaps it's a necessary step.
IMO only worth it if there are obstacles to using some of their code.
> dascher or anyone: did we make any promises to Qualcomm which might
> affect our actions at this point, when they came to join us to do Eudora
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudora_%28e-mail_client%29
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at mozilla.org
More information about the tb-planning