On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 12:05 +0300, Juha Tuomala wrote: > > > On Monday 13 April 2009 10:35:39 Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 23:15 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > > > Some contacts had got duplicated for some reason, but still, > nice effort. > > > > > > Unfortunately, as I've been told, duplication of data is an > inherent issue > > > with libopensync 0.22, and the main reason why they're working on > > > redesigning everything in 0.3x/0.40. Unfortunately, their redesign > is > > > breaking everything at the moment. :-( > > > > Yes, but it's more of a long-term issue (or if you get an incomplete > > sync - the problem is a 'slow sync' duplicates data). I wouldn't > expect > > it as a matter of course on a single-shot test sync. As I said, > though, > > it could actually have been duplicated prior to the sync, I didn't > think > > to check. I'll do some more extensive testing with various devices > in a > > bit. > > > > - In normal use, it will at some point fall into slow sync, sooner or > later > and create duplicates¹. I don't think any user would want that. > - opensync 0.2x cannot detect² the SAME/SIMILAR cases reliably. > - Thus only because of these two issues, (plus hundred two smaller > ones) > opensync 0.2x is broken, by design, inside the core - regardless of > plugins. > - It's useless to ship completely broken (not low Quality, broken) > software. > - Fedora 11 will ship them anyway. > > > > Only thing unclear to me is why? As I said to you in private, in practice I have not observed this as a major issue. I did extensive testing with several devices and sync groups over a long period with 0.22 in Mandriva and did not observe any duplication of data. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
