On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Matt McCutchen <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 15:53 +0200, Thomas Janssen wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Juha Tuomala <Juha.Tuomala@xxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Ryan Rix wrote: >> >> On Mon 12 April 2010 6:40:59 am Juha Tuomala wrote: >> >>> I recall, that the earlier version had some level of Akonadi support >> >>> as well, so in theory, would it be possible to revert the codebase >> >>> back to the one that can actually be used? >> >> >> >> Sure, try `man yum`. >> > >> > You mean that we're here to solve our own problems, not to make a >> > good distribution for great public? >> >> We *have* a good distribution for great public. Kaddressbook works as >> expected for me. > > Please take the request seriously. If Tuju is right that most users > would be better off with the older version, then that's what Fedora > should ship. Tuju, if you can possibly be bothered to list some of the > regressions you consider most severe, that might help the discussion. A general complain, about a software being completely unusable, without pointing out a single problem (not to speak of the masses of problems he sees), recommending to downgrade a single app out of a software bundle, because it would be better for *most* users, can't be taken seriously. Sorry. We also have a fedora-kde ML for KDE related discussions. That's as well the place where fedora contributors read and help with problems. So if you want to help tuju further, please do it at the appropriate mailinglist. Thank you. -- LG Thomas Dubium sapientiae initium -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
