On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:06 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 12:24 +0200, tino wrote:
> > ------- Original message -------
> > > From: Patrick Ohly <[email protected]>
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Sent: 7.8.'12, 9:07
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 21:18 +0200, [email protected]
> > > wrote:
> > >> what is the state of 1.2.99.3? I looks like there are quite some
> > >> interesting bugs since the syncevolution-1-2-99-3 git tag.
> > >
> > > True. I probably should just go ahead and tag+compile 1.2.99.4. Or
> > > perhaps go for 1.3 directly?
> > >
> > > What do you and users think? Does 1.3 need more time for testing or
> > > should I just go ahead and pull the trigger?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > maybe it is a good idea to release 1.2.99.4 and rename it to 1.3 if nothing
> > serious pops up for a few days.
>
> I tagged 1.2.99.4 this morning, a sanity build + test run is on-going.
It completed yesterday evening. I have too many tests ;-)
I sent out official announcements today, too.
One more problem was reported in the meantime, but it seems that it is
not relevant with KDE as in Debian Testing:
https://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=25596
"syncevolution fails for users without an active (kde) session"
So your version of KDE does not work without D-Bus. I had tried that
here (Debian testing, KDE 4.8.4) without problems.
I'll add a check that D-Bus works before calling KDE code. That should
fix the
problem.
--
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
