On 07. aug. 2012 10:15, Patrick Ohly wrote: >> Would >> it be safer to generate the anchor in beginSync, so if the user does >> anything during the sync, the next sync can catch it? > > Then changes made by SyncEvolution after beginSync() would be reported > in the next sync as changes which need to be transmitted to the peer, > which would be wrong.
Is that really a big issue? I figured we're selecting on last modification times here. By causality, assuming all clocks are mostly in sync, typical events transmitted in a synchronization would have a last-modification-time *before* the sync began, and that same last-modification time would be replicated on the other side, and thus also be before the beginSync time, and therefore, not picked up by the next beginSync. And if something slipped through the cracks anyway (clock drift?), hopefully some duplication check would catch it in most cases (at least if UIDs are used). Or maybe last modification times from the future could be "corrected" to avoid surprises. Anyway, to me, this seems less risky than maybe not noticing a change at all? _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution@syncevolution.org http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
