On Fr, 2012-01-20 at 10:53 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Patrick Ohly
> On Mi, 2012-01-18 at 16:55 +0100, Chris Kühl wrote:
>> I've renamed my branch to concurrent-sync-sessions and rebased onto
>> master. I'm now going through and making required changes to get tests
>> to work.
> Note that I pushed another change onto a new "signal-handling" branch.
> This affects you because syncevo-dbus-server will have to relay
> suspend/abort requests. The helper process will have to deal with
> signals similar to syncevo-local-sync helper in that branch.
> Do these changes make sense?
Yes, this looks fine.
btw, I noticed when looking through this the the copyright dates for
SuspendFlags.cpp are old.
Already updated ;-)
BTW, more complete nightly testing found some autotools issue in some
configurations related to the new libsyncevolution->libgdbussyncevo
dependency. Fixes will be in master soon.
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.