Philip, On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 17:01 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > 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 :-)! >
Philip, I wouldn't be favor of taking things late into trunk, with an uncertainty. If you/matt/fejj have confidence on it, I think I'm fine. Hope you got my point. -Srini _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
