On 14 Mar 2016 4:08 p.m., "Michael Catanzaro" <mcatanzaro@gnome.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 15:51 +0000, Richard Turner wrote:
> > Back end isn't the issue, it's bad UX have two apps do the same
> > thing.
> I agree, but we've already crossed that bridge with Contacts, which
> we've had forever, and Notes, which we are admittedly dropping for now.

That's a good point, and with Contacts can lead to some gnashing of teeth, or at least a frown of confusion. The precedent isn't justification for compounding the problem though.

I guess if Evo's calendar can be disabled and GNOME Calendar can fill its shoes without loss of functionality then that'd be fine. I don't know how feasible that is given that the Evo team doesn't "think that the Evolution (or any other application in general) would provide some awkward interface for things which it can do directly".

It's one (good) thing for GNOME to iteratively build a new calendar, but another to adopt it at the expense of Evo's calendar, or otherwise at the cost of creating user confusion, if it hasn't yet reached parity with Evo's.

> We really need someone to get the ball rolling on GNOME Mail, the only
> part of Evolution we haven't replaced yet. Unfortunately, that's a huge
> project.

Yep, it's be nice to have a power user's email client that's faster and more stable than Evolution. For Linux desktops that wheel hasn't yet been reinvented enough ;-)