On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 12:09 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Mi, 2011-09-14 at 17:44 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > I'm currently integrating some more fixes into the 1.2 branch which were > > not in 1.1.99.6 (add<->add conflict (BMC #22783), command line and > > source passwords (BMC #21311, #22937), fixing some EDS API issues with > > regards to multiple detached recurrences (BMC #22940), don't check > > "backend" unless it is needed, backend API changes, updated testing). > > More details once I have written an updated NEWS entry tomorrow. > > > > I can either publish a 1.1.99.7 release candidate this Friday before > > going on a 10 day vacation or call it 1.2 right away. > > > > Are there opinions either way? Anyone willing to give a release > > candidate some testing, in particular with an eye towards the more > > recent changes? Anyone urgently waiting for the final 1.2? > > Okay, call me a chicken, but I am going down the 1.1.99.7 pre-release > path instead of releasing 1.2 right away. > > The list of changes is pretty long:
[...] > * calendar sync: better handling for add<->add conflicts (partly fixes BMC > #22783) > > When both sides of a sync have added the same event, the sync must > determine which one is more recent instead of blindly overwriting > always the same side. Such conflicts are typically rare except for > enterprise scenarios where meeting invitiations are processed > automatically by a groupware (Exchange, Google Calendar/Mail, ...) > and then the attendee status is updated on one side. > > SyncEvolution now does the necessary age comparison and preserves the more > recent data for most properties. In some properties the data from both > sides is preserved by concatenating the text (description, location, ...). > It remains to be seen whether that is really desirable. Also, sync > statistics > are slightly off: the incoming item is counted as "added" even though it > gets turned into an update. This change indeed needed further testing. Valgrind in the nightly testing showed an uninitialized memory read in one test, fixed now. I worked some more on the testing and the latest (partial) results show a perfect 100% pass rate: http://syncev.meego.com/2011-10-12-06-31_testing_apple_davical_mobical_syncevo=syncevolution-1-2-branch/head-testing-amd64/nightly.html Unless I hear otherwise, I will proceed with tagging, compiling and releasing SyncEvolution 1.2 this week. -- 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
