Menu
▾
▴
[Gaim-patches] [ gaim-Patches-971883 ] prpl option to favor server blist
|
From: SourceForge.net <no...@so...> - 2005-04-24 21:37:57
|
Patches item #971883, was opened at 2004-06-12 18:13 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by thekingant You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300235&aid=971883&group_id=235 Category: None Group: None >Status: Closed >Resolution: Rejected Priority: 5 Submitted By: Felipe Contreras (revo) >Assigned to: Mark Doliner (thekingant) Summary: prpl option to favor server blist Initial Comment: Well, since now the policy is to favor the server buddy list that means we should not add buddies from the local buddy list into the server buddy list in the initialization. Most prpls should use this prpl option, but just to be safe this patch only does it for msn, and it works fine. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Mark Doliner (thekingant) Date: 2005-04-24 17:37 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=20979 I'm going to try to remove the call to "serv_add_buddies" at sign on. Hopefully it won't require too many changes. In any case, I don't think this patch is a good idea. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Felipe Contreras (revo) Date: 2005-01-25 15:07 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=158337 I think right now every protocol that has a server buddy list has a hack for not addding buddies from blist.xml. I think these hacks should be removed in favour of a prpl option or something, so buddies are not added from blist.xml. Or maybe even better, to do what I did in the MSN prpl, synchronize buddy lists, asking the user whether or not to add a local buddy that was removed from the sever, but in a prpl generic way. The same thing can be done with permit/deny lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nathan Walp (faceprint) Date: 2005-01-24 23:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=17471 What's the story on this? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Nathan Walp (faceprint) Date: 2004-06-27 14:52 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=17471 Yeah. Kill serv_add_buddies. Oscar doesn't need it, MSN doesn't need it, Jabber doesn't need it. I don't think yahoo needs it. If IRC actually needs it, we can work around it. If things break, we can fix them, but I see no good reason to keep that there. It's an old hack left over from the days of TOC. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Luke Schierer (lschiere) Date: 2004-06-27 14:20 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28833 Nathan, do you have any input here? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Felipe Contreras (revo) Date: 2004-06-26 18:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=158337 All right, now msn doesn't need this patch. But anyway, shall we call add_buddies, and all that stuff after reading blist.xml? Maybe it's time to get rid of that, shall I make a research about how prpl's are going to be affected? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Felipe Contreras (revo) Date: 2004-06-19 03:49 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=158337 There is no need to have serv_add_buddies, but maybe some prpls take for grant that the local list will be sent to them. I don't know, but that's what faceprint said, so if that is the case prpls can slowly set this option to get away of serv_add_buddies until we can be sure no one needs it. But for now, msn really needs to get rid of this local list sync. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Luke Schierer (lschiere) Date: 2004-06-13 17:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28833 i don't know, i guess its just sort of a visual oposite of the prpl option to use the local list, not necessarily a separate option as such, you'd never use both afterall. like one of them defined to 1 and the other 0. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mark Doliner (thekingant) Date: 2004-06-13 17:03 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=20979 Right. Why is there a need to have an option? I'm thinking of removing serv_add_buddies. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Luke Schierer (lschiere) Date: 2004-06-13 16:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=28833 Mark, isn't that exactly what we are doing currently? we add buddies on the server list not on the local list and remove buddies on the local list not on the server list... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mark Doliner (thekingant) Date: 2004-06-13 16:23 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=20979 Why would you not want to favor the server list? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300235&aid=971883&group_id=235 |