On Mi, 2012-01-25 at 02:32 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote: > This was done yesterday (or 2 days ago now). It my be good to give a > little more detailed update at this point.
Thanks, that's very useful. > With the above changes, the initialization of and communication with > the helper binary seems to work well. I'm continuing to work my way > through the tests. Right now I'm dealing with getting autosync to work > properly. This is requiring some additional communication between the > helper and server binaries as well as reworking some code I changed > when removing the priority queues in the server. I wonder whether we should just leave it broken for now. I find the whole autosync implementation unintuitive and already planned to rewrite it from scratch when adding "sync when changes are detected". The problem is that I don't know yet when I will have time for that. If I don't find the time soon, it would block merging your work because regressions in the master branch are not acceptable. -- 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
