Re: anyone fancy testing this address-conduit patch?

Hi Matt,

It took me a long time to get it tested. First because of a lack of
time, and secondly because I took my z22 for a ride in the washing
machine. It takes an awful long time to get the water out of the
touchscreen, but magically everything seems to be working, and it still
had all my data. Actually I must say I was quite surprised it survived
it :-)

Anyway, I got now to testing it.
I applied your patch against the svn version of evolution and e-d-s from
today, and it compiles fine (on archlinux). It also tried 1. and 2. you
mentioned, and it seems to be working ok. I'm not sure how to test the
other points.

So the basic testing I've done looks fine. It's good to see some bugs to
get solved.

Btw: my email address has changed, so do not try to contact me anymore
on my old address, I won't receive your mails.

Kind regards,
Tom

----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Davey
Time: 05-10-08 23:52
> Dear code monkeys,
>
> I'm attaching two patches, one for evolution-data-server and one for
> evolution.  Together, they seem to fix some pretty bad bugs in the
> address conduit.  I would appreciate it if anyone out there was willing
> to test these patches (Tom, Nathan?).
>
> The diffs are against Evolution branch 2.24 as the trunk would require
> me to upgrade my glib and a bunch of other stuff, or build from
> gargnome, neither of which I fancy just now.  2.24 was only branched a
> couple of weeks ago, so it is pretty up to date.
>
> I haven't yet attempted any support for the new Contact fields.  This
> patch is just to fix existing addressbook bugs.  The sync logic,
> particularly for the phone and email fields has changed considerably.
>
> Bugs I've tried to fix:
>      1. The 'first-name / family-name' split on the palm was not
>         respected when writing to the desktop.  It went via 'full_name'.
>         See bug #269342 for some more info.  (aside: IMO Evo full_name
>         munging is far too fragile to be worth using and I wish they'd
>         get rid of it.  It's never going to reliably separate first/last
>         names when challenged by, say "Mary Anne Bloggs" and "John Mc
>         Neill")
>      2. If you erased a phone field on the Palm, it wouldn't be erased
>         on the desktop.
>      3. The 'OTHER' phone fields were broken in various ways.  This is
>         actually already fixed on the 2.24 branch (and trunk) since
>         revision 9380 (see bug #547223)
>      4. There were many ways for phone fields to be re-ordered.  I've
>         tried to avoid this wherever possible.
>      5. Evolution was careless about ordering of multiple email/phone
>         entries in the vcard.  For example, if you imported a 'vcard'
>         with 3 emails, and then saved it immediately, you would find the
>         3 entries would be reversed.  This sort of thing could upset the
>         palm.
>      6. If you had an entry on both desktop and palm, and say you had
>         three phone numbers labelled 'home' on the palm.  Then that
>         entry could be deleted if you changed the desktop record and
>         synced again.
>
> I will probably have to break down the patch into a few components
> before submitting to the Evolution maintainers, but I'd appreciate it if
> anyone was able to do some testing or take a look over the changes in
> the meantime.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
> Matt Davey	I like to browse in occult bookshops if for no other reason than
> [email protected]   to refresh my commitment to science. -- Heinz Pagels
>

_______________________________________________
gnome-pilot-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-pilot-list