Adium 1.4b18/1.3.11?

[Alan Humpherys]

I must confess to being a complete novice when it comes to integration of a new libpurple version into our code base, but seeing the relatively large numbers of patches which are necessary to fix security and compatibility issues in our existing version, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to pull the new version of the library and do both a 1.3.11 and a 1.4B18 release with it.  (Of course, I defer to the experts on the wisdom of that path).  

When it comes to testing, I have a test lab with machines running 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, & 10.6.  (Even though 10.3 is no longer supported by XCode/Adium, we have the test machine if there is a need)

I know that I haven't been active in the project, but have some time over the next weeks that I can invest.  (It would also be great if I had a more experienced expert to collaborate with.)  I really think we need to push hard and get a completed 1.4 out the door.

Let me know how I can best help,

Alan
--
alangh at adium.im


On Apr 20, 2010, at 10:11 PM, John Bailey wrote:

> On 04/20/2010 11:22 PM, Eric Richie wrote:
>> Are there any outstanding issues other than the Y! thing (and maybe the MSN security patch) that we would need to take care of for 1.3.11?
> 
> Gadu-Gadu support in the libpurple 2.5.9 included in Adium 1.3.10 is quite
> deficient as well, due to the bundled libgadu being practically prehistoric.  It
> looks like the following revisions from the im.pidgin.adium.1-4 branch would
> need to be plucked (if cleanly possible) to the im.pidgin.adium.1-3 branch to
> fix both Gadu-Gadu and Yahoo! JAPAN:
> 
> e6348335d02982e12c2be1a30517d7ea46569c51
> 48c2553ef4b46482b26f021c97d2569c1b053227
> 6a525a20cfffe39369fb58b72aeaf5194aa468d9
> 692d75f8dc28e433931f5a4b036c145f132c42ba
> 91e41e5288f7f90048a8cf7d05bedc87aacfa3de
> 47085b9fe64551b697ca9ba601b8c0323e47c449
> 
> I have not yet tried to apply these revisions to the adium.1-3 branch.  I don't
> see a point in doing that until there's a decision about whether a 1.3.11 is
> necessary.  Also, I'm not sure what revision would be necessary for the MSN
> security fix mentioned.  If someone does know, I'd be happy to pluck it across
> with the others listed above when a decision is reached.
> 
> John
>