On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Actually, I have one more concern. It seems to me we might be better off > > checking against a hash of the file, instead of a timestamp. We don't > want > > to continually merge new favorites with every OS update, but that's > exactly > > what we'll do if we only check the timestamp on the favorites.default > file, > > right? By checking a hash, we ensure that someone (either us, by > "shipping" > > a new favorites.default, or the country, via a customization key) > intended a > > new merge to happen. > > Well, what if the country removed an activity because it's no longer > shipped, do we still want to add the rest of the activities that the > user unfavorited? I'm not sure it's worth going to such details right This isn't handled by either approach. Both the timestamp and the contents would be updated in this scenario, and we'd merge the defaults in either case. > > now, even more when laptops will be updated at most twice per year. > Also, at this point in the release, pushing patches is quite > expensive. But enter a ticket if you really want this in a future > release. > It might be true that this one isn't as serious for kids in countries. It will be a real pain for developers worldwide, though, if they are updating to new cutting edge builds and constantly having the defaults merged back. - Eben
_______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
