Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 09:55:56PM +0200, Nicolas Morey-Chaisemartin wrote: > >> > On the other hand, if we're hoping to get rid of this code in favor of >> > the curl-based approach, then it's not worth spending time on >> > cosmetic refactoring, as long as it still behaves correctly in the >> > interim. >> >> Looking at the code, it seems the tunnel mode always uses the legacy imap approach. >> This would have to be ported to curl and stabilized before dropping the legacy code. > > Urgh. That's an important mode, I'd think, and one that I have a feeling > curl may not be interested in supporting, just because of it's > complexity. And even if they did, it would take a while for that curl > version to become available. > > So maybe the idea of deprecating the non-curl implementation is not > something that can happen anytime soon. :( > >> In the meantime, it might be worth doing a bit of cleanup. > > In which case, yeah, it is definitely worth cleaning up the existing > code. But I also agree with you that it's worth making sure the curl > version behaves as similarly as possible. Thanks for guiding this topic forward. I agree with all points you raised in your reviews.
