On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 18:23 +0530, Rajesh Kumar Pawar wrote: > I've been trying to work on a merging scenario using syncevolution as > a client. > > The steps that I followed in this scenario are as follows > > 1. Created a contact with TEL;CELL:12456399 > > 2. Perform slow sync with server > > 3. Modify the field in client vCard as TEL;CELL:12456300 > > 4. Wait for 5min to ensure sufficient difference between the > modification time stamps. > > 5. Modified the field as TEL;CELL:12456391 on server. > > 6. Perform a two-way sync.
In this scenario, the server decides how to handle the conflict. What SyncML implementation are you using as server? You only mention that you use SyncEvolution as client. If the server is not SyncEvolution or libsynthesis based, then you need to talk to the server implementer; there's not much that SyncEvolution or libsynthesis can do. At least not when sticking to a standard SyncML sync. There was an idea a while back to do a SyncML sync in two phases: in the first phase pretend that the client has no changes, and just retrieve changes from the server. This way conflict resolution can be done in the client. Then in the second phase, send the client changes (including merge results) back to the server, hoping that no further changes had been made there in the meantime. This never got implemented, though. In SyncEvolution there is a similar (but not quite the same) data loss issue when adding an address on one side and a telephone number on the other side. I'm currently looking at that. -- 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 os-libsynthesis@synthesis.ch http://lists.synthesis.ch/mailman/listinfo/os-libsynthesis
