On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 16:51 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > My main takeaway was the desire to have automatic sync in 1.0, even if > it is only based on regular polling. We should do the automatic sync > as > long as there are no errors. Once we encounter an error, we need to > stop > the automatic sync, notify the user and let the user deal with it. > Errors in this case are: > * unexpected slow syncs > * nothing else?!
Discussion ongoing on the list, reminder in Bugzilla: #6378 > We also identified the need to keep track of a simple string in the > session report for each item that was modified during a sync. #6377 > The D-Bus interface needs an API for a generic server->client->server > communication, used for passwords at the beginning, later perhaps also > for other requests. Added, needs to be implemented. #6376 > Open question do the designers: what information about a peer is > necessary to represent it in the GUI? #6379. Wow, four issues in a row. Is there a price for "most issues filed per minute"? -- 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. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
