On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 20:22 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 20:11 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > I know that this isn't particular helpful to diagnose the root cause of > > the issue. I'm just writing to let you know that if you have problems > > with a certain configuration, try removing the entire .synthesis > > directory in it. > > It's the other way around. *Removing* the binfiles and creating them > from scratch with the current development code leads to the problem. > Writing them *once* with SyncEvolution 0.9.1 *fixes* the problem.
I don't quite understand why running SyncEvolution 0.9.1 had an effect. Anyway, the root cause of the problem was a recent commit in SyncEvolution. Fix is in "master": commit a0a7a659c606eb1c77062a0881c617ff8bcf9ac9 Author: Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> Date: Tue Nov 24 22:01:23 2009 +0100 SyncContext: only use one engine instance, fixes slow sync issue This removes code which was added as part of the some of the SAN handling patches. The code added a second Synthesis engine while the first one was still running, using this statement: // reinitializes the engine, only at this time can we decide whether // this is a server session or client session. SwapEngine swapengine(*this); I recognize the comment. It must have been copied from an older SyncEvolution revision. However, SyncEvolution no longer uses two instances of the engine, so this code can and has to be removed again. Instead the first instance is reinitialized once the full config is known. -- 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
