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

Reply via email to