On Do, 2010-09-23 at 02:30 -0700, Lukas Zeller wrote: > I owe you an answer regarding commits 0e139ee311 and 4275e77001:
[...] > But altough going back is possible here, the binfile store generally > does not provide going back (that is, without loosing all settings), > only forward. As soon as something changes in the data format, the DB > version field in the binfile is incremented, and it will no longer be > compatible with the previous version. In general that approach is fine, I wasn't expecting anything else. It's just that I'd like to warn users and whenever possible, give them the choice of going back. That increases the number of people who can try out an experimental snapshot, because they can try something and then fall back to the stable version more easily. Given that these two changes are fairly intrusive, I think I'll pass for SyncEvolution 1.1. Instead I'll release with some specific fixes backported, and then combine the libsynthesis update with some other non-backward compatible changes in SyncEvolution itself. -- 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
