On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mi, 2012-01-18 at 16:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote: > >> I've renamed my branch to concurrent-sync-sessions and rebased onto > >> master. I'm now going through and making required changes to get tests > >> to work. > > > > Note that I pushed another change onto a new "signal-handling" branch. > > This affects you because syncevo-dbus-server will have to relay > > suspend/abort requests. The helper process will have to deal with > > signals similar to syncevo-local-sync helper in that branch. > > > > Do these changes make sense? > > > > Yes, this looks fine. > > btw, I noticed when looking through this the the copyright dates for > SuspendFlags.cpp are old.
Already updated ;-) BTW, more complete nightly testing found some autotools issue in some configurations related to the new libsyncevolution->libgdbussyncevo dependency. Fixes will be in master soon. -- 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
