On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 09:04 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 03:35 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote: > > Yeah, unfortunately things are not ideal. Have you given any further > > thought as to how we are going to properly detect conflicting sync > > sessions? This points getting close that this is going to need to be > > dealt with. I've not looked into this at length yet. Is there no > > interface I could use to test that syncs will not conflict? > > Nevertheless, it would be nice to punt this to a later patch/branch, > just so we have some chance to get the current work into master.
I agree. Let's keep the current behavior (only one session can run at a time) and figure out how to detect non-conflicting sessions later. Don't bite off more than you can swallow :-) -- 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
