On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 11:47 +0000, Lukas Zeller wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2009, at 18:43 , Patrick Ohly wrote:
>
> > There are quite a bit of changes in your "luz" branch and some unmerged
> > ones in our "master". Should we merge the changes back and forth so that
> > we are in sync again?
>
> Probably yes. Now that unilib has become the main line, I'm back with
> the old scheme - my current work on "luz" (with a little bit of risk
> that something in there might not yet work in different contexts than
> mine) and "master" being pulled up from time to time as a more
> official and more conservative "release" branch.
We'd like to release SyncEvolution 1.0 alpha soon, likely early next
week. Can we get the two branches synchronized by then?
There's another topic that I'd like to bring up. We now have two example
XML configs. Both contain similar content (field lists, profile), but
cannot be merged into one file (server vs. client definition).
In SyncEvolution we use a copy of the client sample configuration and
had a system set up so that we can make changes to it and submit them
back for inclusion in upstream libsynthesis. This hasn't been used for a
while and would have to be changed to work for both configs.
I'd like to suggest a different approach:
* instead of two monolithic files, maintain XML fragments inside
the libsynthesis repo
* remove the complete examples from the repo
* optional: generate them at build time by concatenating the
fragments
Lukas, I believe this is already how the config is stored in a
non-public repo, isn't it? So hopefully this will be a minor change for
you. I can add the part which generates a full config when using the
autotools build.
In SyncEvolution, we would go one step further:
* install the fragments in the system
(/usr/share/syncevolution/...)
* compose the full config at *runtime*, also taking into account
fragments that the system admin ("/etc/syncevolution/") or the
user has installed (~/.config/syncevolution/...).
This allows users to enhance the configuration for their specific
purposes/devices and preserve the changes across SyncEvolution updates.
--
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
