On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:00:10 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 02:20:22PM +0200, Tino Keitel wrote: > > Package: isync > > Followup-For: Bug #315423 > > > > the new version seems to be very stable, and is well maintained by upstream. > > As said before, it also fixes bugs and design flaws of the old version. > > > > Any chance to ship etch with a recent isync version? I would be glad to help > > out testing the new package. > > What I need help testing out is establishing that the right thing > happens automatically when users migrate from the old isync to the new > mbsync commands. The concern is with the configuration file and the > database file. > > I agree that the latest isync is loads better than the old one, and so > if things don't work maybe we just tell people in the NEWS file that > it's an incompatible upgrade, and that things will just break, or > maybe we create a new mbsync package and tell people that they have to > explicit upgrade to the mbsync package and be ready to deal with any > compatibility issues that might exist.
I think that a smooth upgrade without user interaction is desireable here. > I seem to have noticed some issues with the database file mapping IMAP > UID's a while back, but upstream claims it should Just Work, and I > haven't had time to do the investigation. If you could help confirm > what's needed to do isync->mbsync migration, that would be most > helpful. OK. I'll set up a local imap server with several folders and a few thousand mails, sync with the old isync, and then try the new isync. What should I look for? Just test if sync (also with new/deleted mails on the server and in the local maildirs) works? Any wishes regarding the server? I think I chose courier, dovecot, or both. I hope I find the time for this next weekend. Regards, Tino -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
