On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Looking at the AutoSync stuff is leading me to fix other related issues (shutdown) so I'll see how far this takes me. Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
