On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 09:43:09PM +0100, Cedric Ware wrote: > I don't know if this function will interest many people; I don't really > see a use case for it other than this kind of bugware. But you never > know, so here's the patch. > it's kind of interesting if one wanted to centralize the selection of synchronized folders rather than keeping the .mbsyncrcs on multiple slaves in sync. nobody asked for it so far, but why not. the option name is too technical; it should be something like SubscribedOnly. you're a bit too generous with parentheses for my taste and the spacing of the ternary op does not comply with the style, but other than that i cannot see anything obviously wrong with the patch. well, except that documentation is missing.
_______________________________________________ isync-devel mailing list isync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
