Re: advice for syncevolution in squeeze
On So, 2010-11-14 at 17:38 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 12:06 -0400, David Bremner wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:08:22 +0100, "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 14:33 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> > >
> > > My preference would be to see if the fixes for data loss, crashes, etc.
> > > are backportable to the current version in the archive. A quick look
> > > through the git log shows many more commits than I'd imagine correspond
> > > to the fixes mentioned but I obviously don't know the codebase well
> > > enough to tell if a sequence of commits might correspond to a single
> > > fix.
> >
> > I have prepared a potential upload for testing-proposed-updates
> > cherry-picking most but not all of the fixes mentioned in Patrick's
> > previous messages.
>
> Thanks for that.
>
> > - Nokia E55: needs absolute alarm times (MBC #1657)
> > - Nokia phones: alarm times in UTC, sending PHOTO (BMC #1657, #5860)
>
> Does the latter of these not render the former redundant?
I haven't looked at the specific patches that were cherry-picked, but
yes, the older patch was for a specific model while the more general one
was made later. No harm in having the device-specific patch applied, it
simply becomes redundant.
--
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.
Reply to: