On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 16:58 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 21:27 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
> > This sounds good. Do I have to make any fixes to the Google Contacts
> > address book backend, or will it all be handled centrally? (i.e. With
> > this GNetworkMonitor change, w
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 21:27 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
> This sounds good. Do I have to make any fixes to the Google Contacts
> address book backend, or will it all be handled centrally? (i.e. With
> this GNetworkMonitor change, will there be any bugs left in the Google
> backend’s handling of
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 11:13 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 11:38 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > IMHO we should implement actual network availibility tracking in
> > EDataFactory (using NM or ConnMan) to get the real state inside the
> > backends (i.e. if there is no netw
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 11:38 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> IMHO we should implement actual network availibility tracking in
> EDataFactory (using NM or ConnMan) to get the real state inside the
> backends (i.e. if there is no network the backends should always be
> offline).
Alex and I talked
The google addressbook backends only allows writes while online, and I
need to reliably detect this and display the editable state in
Gnome Contacts. The addressbook readonly property is propagated via
folks, so theoretically this should be doable. However, a series of
failures is causing problems