Makes perfect sense to me to postpone these updates for later. Best Regards,
Lukas On Sep 29, 2010, at 18:28 , Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Do, 2010-09-23 at 02:30 -0700, Lukas Zeller wrote: >> I owe you an answer regarding commits 0e139ee311 and 4275e77001: > > [...] > >> But altough going back is possible here, the binfile store generally >> does not provide going back (that is, without loosing all settings), >> only forward. As soon as something changes in the data format, the DB >> version field in the binfile is incremented, and it will no longer be >> compatible with the previous version. > > In general that approach is fine, I wasn't expecting anything else. It's > just that I'd like to warn users and whenever possible, give them the > choice of going back. That increases the number of people who can try > out an experimental snapshot, because they can try something and then > fall back to the stable version more easily. > > Given that these two changes are fairly intrusive, I think I'll pass for > SyncEvolution 1.1. Instead I'll release with some specific fixes > backported, and then combine the libsynthesis update with some other > non-backward compatible changes in SyncEvolution itself. > > -- > 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. > > Lukas Zeller (l...@synthesis.ch) - Synthesis AG, SyncML Solutions & Sustainable Software Concepts i...@synthesis.ch, http://www.synthesis.ch _______________________________________________ os-libsynthesis mailing list os-libsynthesis@synthesis.ch http://lists.synthesis.ch/mailman/listinfo/os-libsynthesis
