On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 10:45 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 13:17 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:

[CUT]
 
> > (sounds like severe to me)
> > 
> 
> To be honest, I have no idea what the side effects of changing that code
> to return TRUE for the RESYNCING state are. That's one of the problems
> with a tri-state that isn't really a tri-state :\

Agree

> As you mentioned, having it return FALSE is clearly not "correct" and
> returning TRUE may introduce some bugs :\
> 
> As far as I know, there are some bugs regarding offline usage not
> resyncing properly when going back online, so you may have found the
> cause.

Perhaps, yes.

> I'll let the current maintainers make a judgment call on whether to
> accept this into mainline Camel or not (looks like either way, there's
> gonna have to be some attention given to this area of code)

So Matthew, the ball is in your camp now :-)!

-- I'll ping Srinivasa by adding in CC too. --

> Sorry that I can't be any more "concrete" than that :(

No problem, I understand. It surprised me quite a bit too as I found
this one. I didn't expect the problem to be in that area of the code.

The bug report leading to this one was also vague :), our bug tester was
telling us that it's not right that he could move a message while the
client was offline. He expected the UI to block his action in stead.

So we defended that this is actually supported and that the message
should be stored remotely as soon as the client goes online.

We tested this to be sure of our claim, and we saw that the message was
not visible for other E-mail clients ... oeps


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
home: me at pvanhoof dot be 
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org 
http://pvanhoof.be/blog
http://codeminded.be




_______________________________________________
Evolution-hackers mailing list
Evolution-hackers@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers

Reply via email to