On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:01 AM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote: > On Di, 2011-08-30 at 12:33 +0200, Chris Kühl wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mo, 2011-08-29 at 15:12 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: >> >> > 1) In the case that we have no PnPInformation info we have... >> >> > >> >> > deviceName = User-modifiable name >> >> > peerName = User-modifiable name >> >> >> >> Better leave the peerName unset. It's semantic will be "we know for sure >> >> that this device is a "<vendor>[ <product>]". >> > >> > You decided to not implement it like this, did you? >> >> That was an oversight. Attached, you'll find updated patch. > > Thanks, merged. When writing the API docs for it I got unhappy about the > overloading of peerName that I had suggested earlier and ended up > renaming the property. See attached patch (from master).
Great. On vacation now but glad to see that get in and completed. > >> I agree that there is a need to be able for the client code to know >> that they have reliable info or not. Setting peerName to empty is a >> good way to do that. > > Or better, don't even send it. True. > >> I've also attached a n updated patch for the script. Just adds a >> header with copyright and license info. > > Also merged. I'll make publish the blog post within the next couple days. Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
