Re: [SyncEvolution] SyncEvolution 1.1.99.2 ready for testing
On Do, 2011-02-10 at 08:38 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Mi, 2011-02-09 at 19:29 +0000, Frederik Elwert wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 08.02.2011, 08:55 +0100 schrieb Patrick Ohly:
> > Downgrading is still possible. If you plan to do that, make a copy of
> > ~/.config/syncevolution and restore that later. You'll run into slow
> > syncs; resolve these with an explicit slow sync or refresh syncs.
>
> You mean, slow syncs are expected when downgrading? But a normal upgrade
> should not trigger a slow sync?
>
> I ran into a slow sync after migration with the new version, and I don’t
> know if that was to be expected. The commandline gives me:
>
> [INFO] memo: inactive
> [INFO] calendar: resuming slow sync, two-way
> [INFO] todo: resuming slow sync, two-way
> [INFO] addressbook: starting slow sync, two-way
> [INFO] calendar: resumed slow sync done unsuccessfully
> [ERROR] unexpected slow sync (local, status 22000)
> [INFO] todo: resumed slow sync done unsuccessfully
> [ERROR] unexpected slow sync (local, status 22000)
> [INFO] addressbook: slow sync done unsuccessfully
> [ERROR] local, status 10415
> [ERROR] error code from Synthesis engine local, status 10415
A slow sync after a downgrade from 1.1.99.2 -> 1.1.1 is expected, but
not for the upgrade. I need to test this.
In my test, no slow sync was needed after the 1.1.1 -> 1.1.99.2
migration.
I find it a bit strange that "resuming slow sync" is mentioned above.
That sounds a bit like the previous sync before the migration hadn't
completed normally. In that case all bets are off. I don't expect the
more recent version to be able to resume an older sync, but I don't know
for sure.
--
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.