On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 10:47 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > I wonder a bit what we should do about obsolete code. If a branch was > not merged yet, then it is hard to see whether that is because it was > rejected (my original "logging" branch) or still pending (Congwu's > "Client+Resend data: bug#3427, add sysync::STEP_RESENDDATA").
FWIW, I've merged the latter into our master trunk so that we can enable this feature in SyncEvolution. Congwu, I assume that a solution purely inside SyncEvolution would have had some drawbacks that you were able to avoid by changing libsynthesis. I also bumped the libsynthesis.so versioning to document this backwards compatible API extension. > I suggest that we purge obsolete code from the public repos. If someone > wants to retain a copy for himself, then this is possible in a cloned > repo. > > Candidates for removal are: > * "logging", "logging_upstream", "mobical" branches in the > syncevolution repo (the latter was merged into synthesis > upstream) > * "remote-rules" in the synthesis repo > * the "Mimedirprofile: allow parameter value enclosed by double > quote for vcard2.1" patch in the yongsheng branch > > Finally, I'd like to see the san.[h|cpp] code be moved into > src/sysync_SDK/Sources because it needs to be called by its users > directly. I can't do this myself because implies a license change (LGPL > -> BSD) and thus has to be done by the owners. Comments? -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ os-libsynthesis mailing list [email protected] http://lists.synthesis.ch/mailman/listinfo/os-libsynthesis
