On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Patrick Ohly <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 17:53 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 16:43 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> > We've now got the GIO GDBus issues fixed and all the non-autosync &
>> > non-connection tests pass with both DBus wrappers. We are currently
>> > going through the code and making sure code is commented properly,
>> > debugging output is cleaned up and header files are organized more
>> > cleanly.
>>
>> Can you rebase it onto for-master/new-master or even
>> for-master/platform-modules?
>
> Please ignore for-master/platform-modules for now, it has a regression
> visible in test-dbus.py. I'm testing a fix:
>
Yeah, we were working on rebasing on to for-master/platform-modules
but were running into issues with the LocalSync and Interactive
password tests. Those tests were passing before we rebased. Taking a
quick look at for-master/platform-modules it seems you are reworking
the password code which would probably break the changes I made to get
interactive passwords working.
Now that you've merged for-master/new-master into master we are
rebasing onto master.
Cheers,
Chris
> diff --git a/src/dbus/server/dbus-sync.cpp b/src/dbus/server/dbus-sync.cpp
> index 0c64b9a..4a86c88 100644
> --- a/src/dbus/server/dbus-sync.cpp
> +++ b/src/dbus/server/dbus-sync.cpp
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ SE_BEGIN_CXX
>
> DBusSync::DBusSync(const std::string &config,
> Session &session) :
> - SyncContext(config),
> + SyncContext(config, true),
> m_session(session)
> {
> setUserInterface(this);
>
>
> --
> 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
