On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 14:47 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Mi, 2011-12-21 at 14:17 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote: > > Overall it looks like it makes sense. > > Good. I already went ahead and have a working implementation now, too.
I pushed the complete implementation to the "fork-exec" branch. If (or when ;-) you are working, please have a look at the changes. I'll not rebase that branch anymore, feel free to use it as base of your work. In the meantime I'll start rewriting the local sync to use D-Bus as communication instead of the current fork+pipes. The downside will be that local sync starts to depend on glib and D-Bus, which wasn't the case before. More a theoretic problem, I don't think anyone really needed local sync without also having (and using) the other two. -- 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 SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
