Should we officially kill the 0.22 ?

[Juha Tuomala-2]

There is a discussion in fedora-devel list what to do with the mess
after these non-upstream-communicated 0.3x updates into stable distro.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479954
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01272.html

Now the plan is to revert it back to 0.22, with the argument that 'it works'.
Well, for me it mostly never did. And everyone here knows the reasons and
focuses to the trunk, which is of course the right thing to do.

I think that decision is partly based on distro guide banner at front page
that states that 0.22 is the last stable and you should not use the 0.3x
series. Well, that's true, but it's not supported either. Some user might
get hand holding at #opensync but nobody actually cares about 0.22 anyway,
it's just about being nice and trying to help them. Last actual changes in
0.22 are two years old already and I don't think nobody of you have even
compiled it for ages.

In my opinion, we should forget the 0.22 and announce it dead. It just takes
focus and time from trunk that we don't have. Distros having 0.22 is just
making hundreds of users to try it and it's not necesssairly a PR that we
want as it's not working and nobody really supports it. Instead we could lead
the crowd to focus to trunk and that could potentially bring new developers.
It would definately increase testing and bug reporting, which is not bad either.

The fact is that 0.2x is dead and IMO we should say it.


Tuju

--
Varo hattupäisiä autoilijoita.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Bjšoern Ricks-2]

Tuju is right. IMHO we should really drop any support (if there would be
any ...) for 0.22. It's really frustrating for end users AND developers
that tickets for 0.22 will never get fixed. E.g. the guy from
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01486.html 
wants to get http://opensync.org/ticket/877 fixed. This is a bug that
should be already solved with newer libsyncml and libwbxml I guess. But
what should we do with this ticket? Should I close it because it is
invalid? No, because it is a serious bug. Am I going to fix it for 0.22?
No, because I don't want to waste my time with 0.22 and move on with
0.40! The only solution is to declare 0.22 as dead and unsupported! Or
is anybody out there who is willing to step in?
If we decide to do this we need a post in the wiki which explains our
decision in detail.

I am not sure if 0.22 is unusable and should be dropped from distos too.
Never used that old version. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. That
decision is up to distro maintainers.

Btw. why people always claim about the opensync development and don't
get involved with the development??? There must be hundreds of users out
there and only a few people care about our project.

Regards
--
/Bjoern Ricks

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Daniel Gollub-2]

On Wednesday 25 March 2009 10:40:19 am Juha Tuomala wrote:

> There is a discussion in fedora-devel list what to do with the mess
> after these non-upstream-communicated 0.3x updates into stable distro.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479954
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01272.html
>
> Now the plan is to revert it back to 0.22, with the argument that 'it
> works'. Well, for me it mostly never did. And everyone here knows the
> reasons and focuses to the trunk, which is of course the right thing to do.
>
> I think that decision is partly based on distro guide banner at front page
> that states that 0.22 is the last stable and you should not use the 0.3x
> series. Well, that's true, but it's not supported either. Some user might
> get hand holding at #opensync but nobody actually cares about 0.22 anyway,
> it's just about being nice and trying to help them. Last actual changes in
> 0.22 are two years old already and I don't think nobody of you have even
> compiled it for ages.

I don't agree here - there are many lucky people which managed to get 0.22
working. Updating to some 0.3x might break things again.

They should downgrade to 0.22 for the time being. Upgrading to 0.40 will be
also kind of supported by configuration update helpers (e.g. OSyncUpdater). I
don't plan to support 0.36 update to 0.4x or so.

>
> In my opinion, we should forget the 0.22 and announce it dead. It just
> takes focus and time from trunk that we don't have. Distros having 0.22 is
> just making hundreds of users to try it and it's not necesssairly a PR that
> we want as it's not working and nobody really supports it. Instead we could
> lead the crowd to focus to trunk and that could potentially bring new
> developers. It would definately increase testing and bug reporting, which
> is not bad either.
>
> The fact is that 0.2x is dead and IMO we should say it.

We're a completely understaffed. I don't want to waste time discussing this
which i could use making 0.40 ready. So please respect my ignorant decision
for now and bear with me some more weeks to get 0.40 out. Thanks!

0.22 is great - since there a lot of people out which managed somehow to get
things working. Usually those people which have working setup without lot of
pain don't make big noise about something working - it's only the "few" which
have troubles ;)

Best Regards,
Daniel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

On Wednesday, March 25, 2009 17:47:12 Bjoern Ricks wrote:
> Btw. why people always claim about the opensync development and don't
> get involved with the development??? There must be hundreds of users
> out there and only a few people care about our project.

I got started a while ago and wanted to continue, but things kept
changing too fast to get my bearings on the project. SVN activity seems
to have slowed since then. It would have helped to know which revisions
were working properly to build off of. Having git-like access helped with
this and with an unreliable connection, but was a bit of trouble to set
up. I also wanted to get kde working nicely with opensync but was
waiting to upgrade to a more reliable kde first, which I've done. I may
check back again and see if I can get more involved in the future.

This project is needed. Best of luck on getting things working smoothly.

Michael

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Michael Bell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Daniel,

Daniel Gollub wrote:

> I don't agree here - there are many lucky people which managed to get 0.22
> working. Updating to some 0.3x might break things again.
>
> They should downgrade to 0.22 for the time being. Upgrading to 0.40 will be
> also kind of supported by configuration update helpers (e.g. OSyncUpdater). I
> don't plan to support 0.36 update to 0.4x or so.

Actually I think that 0.22 is in EOS state (End-Of-Support). This is
what Juha and Bricks mean. I agree on this. EOS does not mean EOL. If
there is a distro which want to fix it then they can do it in our or in
their VCS. The simple question today is, if you want to focus on 0.40
development who supports 0.22? We need real commitments here.

Additionally 0.22 worked in the past because the old mobile software
tolerates a lot of problems. The new (Nokia) devices are much more
strict in terms of the SyncML specification.

> We're a completely understaffed. I don't want to waste time discussing this
> which i could use making 0.40 ready. So please respect my ignorant decision
> for now and bear with me some more weeks to get 0.40 out. Thanks!

Stop. This is an unacceptable statement. Nobody has the right to stop a
discussion by its authority. If somebody has no time to discuss then
this one is not interested in the discussions background which means the
opinion does not matter. So the important point is, if you have no time
for discussing it because of your work on 0.40, then the 0.22 support is
not your thing which means the others can discuss and decide the issue
without you.

Such a statement like the above is dictator style and can only cause
frustration and aggressions. No single developer has the right to make
decisions on its own in case of a "conflict" and denying an open
discussion (especially if there are different opinions by other
developers or supporters in this case).

Again aborting a discussion is against the rules of open development. We
have definitely no ruling authority. This is a question of netiquette.

So back to the discussion is the only acceptable way. All developers and
users wait for a stable release/API. You are not the only one ;)

> 0.22 is great - since there a lot of people out which managed somehow to get
> things working. Usually those people which have working setup without lot of
> pain don't make big noise about something working - it's only the "few" which
> have troubles ;)

Simply all new Nokia S40 devices does not work. The most S60 devices
should not work too. So a "few" is really relative ;)

Best regards

Michael
- --
___________________________________________________________________

Michael Bell                        Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin

Tel.: [phone]           ZE Computer- und Medienservice
Fax:  [phone]           Unter den Linden 6
michael.bell@...       D-10099 Berlin
___________________________________________________________________

PGP Fingerprint: 09E4 3D29 4156 2774 0F2C  C643 D8BD 1918 2030 5AAB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJyjHs2L0ZGCAwWqsRAqiKAKCxNurXvGSw5mtD3/EzXDYxtdt/ywCfVGaL
TKRzv3i1S81ZcAX1bYgl64g=
=bkA+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Daniel Gollub-2]

On Wednesday 25 March 2009 02:30:20 pm Michael Bell wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Daniel Gollub wrote:
> > I don't agree here - there are many lucky people which managed to get
> > 0.22 working. Updating to some 0.3x might break things again.
> >
> > They should downgrade to 0.22 for the time being. Upgrading to 0.40 will
> > be also kind of supported by configuration update helpers (e.g.
> > OSyncUpdater). I don't plan to support 0.36 update to 0.4x or so.
>
> Actually I think that 0.22 is in EOS state (End-Of-Support). This is
> what Juha and Bricks mean. I agree on this. EOS does not mean EOL. If
> there is a distro which want to fix it then they can do it in our or in
> their VCS. The simple question today is, if you want to focus on 0.40
> development who supports 0.22? We need real commitments here.

Right - who supports OpenSync 0.22? Who develops OpenSync trunk?

>
> Additionally 0.22 worked in the past because the old mobile software
> tolerates a lot of problems. The new (Nokia) devices are much more
> strict in terms of the SyncML specification.

Those old mobiles still work with 0.22 today - forcing them to upgrade to 0.3x
will break things for them for sure.

>
> > We're a completely understaffed. I don't want to waste time discussing
> > this which i could use making 0.40 ready. So please respect my ignorant
> > decision for now and bear with me some more weeks to get 0.40 out.
> > Thanks!
>
> Stop. This is an unacceptable statement. Nobody has the right to stop a
> discussion by its authority. If somebody has no time to discuss then
> this one is not interested in the discussions background which means the
> opinion does not matter. So the important point is, if you have no time
> for discussing it because of your work on 0.40, then the 0.22 support is
> not your thing which means the others can discuss and decide the issue
> without you.

Ok - then i revoke this "decision" thing - at least in my personal opinion
things worked out quite well the last year - expect that 0.40 is not released
yet.

>
> Such a statement like the above is dictator style and can only cause
> frustration and aggressions. No single developer has the right to make
> decisions on its own in case of a "conflict" and denying an open
> discussion (especially if there are different opinions by other
> developers or supporters in this case).
>
> Again aborting a discussion is against the rules of open development. We
> have definitely no ruling authority. This is a question of netiquette.
>
> So back to the discussion is the only acceptable way. All developers and
> users wait for a stable release/API. You are not the only one ;)

Right - all wait for a stable release/API - but how many really actively
contribute to OpenSync API development?

Quite frankly, in my opinion only those how really heavily contribute to
OpenSync with time to this project should "judge"/decided what we want to see
as "supported" and what not.

What benefit do you see if we announce in the wild that we don't support 0.22
and we don't support 0.3x? I guess this will just motivate people fork
OpenSync or start a new project ...

And letting distros package up 0.3x isn't a good idea either.

>
> > 0.22 is great - since there a lot of people out which managed somehow to
> > get things working. Usually those people which have working setup without
> > lot of pain don't make big noise about something working - it's only the
> > "few" which have troubles ;)
>
> Simply all new Nokia S40 devices does not work. The most S60 devices
> should not work too. So a "few" is really relative ;)

I don't agree here - there are many people using not the SyncML plugin at all.
Usually people having a working 0.22 don't communicate actively with us -
since they don't have problems. I know really a lot people using 0.22 on their
daily basis - i'm not kidding here - declaring EOS just brings more discussion
and so on...

I agree that their is not much support at all in 0.22 - and my priority is on
0.40. But i prefer to keep current setups with "old" mobiles working instead
of breaking those setups in favor of "hardware enablement".


So please - let me know if their is any benefit declaring 0.22 for dead?
I see mostly disadvantages.

And yes - i did some "support" for 0.22. Few month ago i helped Michael Banck
with some Debian Bugreport with 0.22 and kdepim-sync. There was no code fix
but a valid workaround. But again - this is not a high priority thing - i
don't spent hours on that - and to be honest currently i'm seeing more
recently reported 0.3x bugreports then 0.22.

And I guess Distros do bugfixing of 0.22 anyway on their own - they can't
fully rely on upstream 24x7.

Yes, i want to see fedora downgrading to 0.22 - since i can't guarantee when
0.40 is ready. So please let them downgrade.

Best Regards,
Daniel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Juha Tuomala-2]

On Wednesday 25 March 2009 12:47:12 Bjoern Ricks wrote:
> If we decide to do this we need a post in the wiki which explains our
> decision in detail.

Yes, it was partially our fault that 0.3x got included into distros as I
added the banner to the frontpage *after* this mistake took place in
Fedora. But it was not a secret that those were not stable releases.
It was probably caused by the KDE requirement and the rest is history.

> I am not sure if 0.22 is unusable and should be dropped from distos too.
> Never used that old version. Sometimes it works and sometimes not. That
> decision is up to distro maintainers.

I've been testing multisync and opensync versions from 0.16, have packaged
them and tested with pile of different Nokia phones. There has been some
success along the way, but for continous use, the 0.22 just didn't cut it,
slowsync never worked and you eventually fall into that anyway. Well, we
have a pile of tickets proving that case.

> Btw. why people always claim about the opensync development and don't
> get involved with the development??? There must be hundreds of users out
> there and only a few people care about our project.

I'd guess that our large breakage that drives the testers away (remember
that potential developers are testers too) and project complexity are
the main reasons. I also remember how complex everything felt at start and
still don't understand all areas deeply enough. Thus I'm pro binary
testing packages, everyone compiling themselves doesn't add that much value
here.


Tuju

--
Varo hattupäisiä autoilijoita.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Pawel Kot-5]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 14:30, Michael Bell
<michael.bell@...> wrote:

>> 0.22 is great - since there a lot of people out which managed somehow to get
>> things working. Usually those people which have working setup without lot of
>> pain don't make big noise about something working - it's only the "few" which
>> have troubles ;)
>
> Simply all new Nokia S40 devices does not work.

They should work with gnokii-sync plugin.

> The most S60 devices should not work too. So a "few" is really relative ;)

Nokia e50 was the one I tried and it worked. Not sure about newer models.

--
Pawel Kot

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Juha Tuomala-2]

On Wednesday 25 March 2009 15:58:07 you wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 March 2009 02:30:20 pm Michael Bell wrote:
> > Simply all new Nokia S40 devices does not work. The most S60 devices
> > should not work too. So a "few" is really relative ;)
>
> I don't agree here - there are many people using not the SyncML plugin at all.

Plain nokia that has 40% marketshare on phones, have all syncml interface.
One can add other vendors that make it surely over 50-60% or more.

>

For anything else, I've no comment, everything has been stated here more
than once.

--
Varo hattupäisiä autoilijoita.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Daniel Gollub-2]

On Wednesday 25 March 2009 03:42:48 pm Juha Tuomala wrote:

> On Wednesday 25 March 2009 15:58:07 you wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 March 2009 02:30:20 pm Michael Bell wrote:
> > > Simply all new Nokia S40 devices does not work. The most S60 devices
> > > should not work too. So a "few" is really relative ;)
> >
> > I don't agree here - there are many people using not the SyncML plugin at
> > all.
>
> Plain nokia that has 40% marketshare on phones, have all syncml interface.
> One can add other vendors that make it surely over 50-60% or more.

[...]

OpenSync is not limited to be a Nokia PC Suite clone.
There are people not using SyncML at all - trust me. I personally also prefer
SyncML compared to other propitiatory protocols.

Best Regards,
Daniel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Michael Bell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daniel Gollub wrote:

> On Wednesday 25 March 2009 02:30:20 pm Michael Bell wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Gollub wrote:
>>> I don't agree here - there are many lucky people which managed to get
>>> 0.22 working. Updating to some 0.3x might break things again.
>>>
>>> They should downgrade to 0.22 for the time being. Upgrading to 0.40 will
>>> be also kind of supported by configuration update helpers (e.g.
>>> OSyncUpdater). I don't plan to support 0.36 update to 0.4x or so.
>> Actually I think that 0.22 is in EOS state (End-Of-Support). This is
>> what Juha and Bricks mean. I agree on this. EOS does not mean EOL. If
>> there is a distro which want to fix it then they can do it in our or in
>> their VCS. The simple question today is, if you want to focus on 0.40
>> development who supports 0.22? We need real commitments here.
>
> Right - who supports OpenSync 0.22? Who develops OpenSync trunk?

I develop only on trunk (libwbxml and libsyncml). The SyncML plugin is
maintained too by me. I "just" need a stable API to develop and test.

> Ok - then i revoke this "decision" thing - at least in my personal opinion
> things worked out quite well the last year - expect that 0.40 is not released
> yet.

The problem is that the last point is the only thing which is visible
from the outside. If somebody is working on the trunk then this trunk is
too often broken. So how should somebody start working on OpenSync if it
breaks so often. Learning is a process which has to do with continuity.
People can only learn to code OpenSync if there is some kind of
continuity and this is the problem today. I don't think that there will
be new upstream developers until 0.40 is released and there is a
reliable code base or API.

I also stopped working on the SyncML plugin for a while because the API
changed too fast. I wait for a signal that it makes sense to adapt to
the actual API.

> Right - all wait for a stable release/API - but how many really actively
> contribute to OpenSync API development?

Please see above. I really think that there will be no new contributors
until 0.40.

> Quite frankly, in my opinion only those how really heavily contribute to
> OpenSync with time to this project should "judge"/decided what we want to see
> as "supported" and what not.
>
> What benefit do you see if we announce in the wild that we don't support 0.22
> and we don't support 0.3x? I guess this will just motivate people fork
> OpenSync or start a new project ...

The most people need a statement that 0.22 works as it is or not. So
sometimes there are workarounds but there will be no code fixes. This
will reduce noise.

> And letting distros package up 0.3x isn't a good idea either.

0.3x should never be packaged. I think we all agree here.

> I agree that their is not much support at all in 0.22 - and my priority is on
> 0.40. But i prefer to keep current setups with "old" mobiles working instead
> of breaking those setups in favor of "hardware enablement".

Nobody wants that those people upgrade. EOS or EOSL has nothing to do
with EOL. There is a clear difference. If it works then there is no
reason why they should upgrade.

Best regards

Michael
- --
___________________________________________________________________

Michael Bell                        Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin

Tel.: [phone]           ZE Computer- und Medienservice
Fax:  [phone]           Unter den Linden 6
michael.bell@...       D-10099 Berlin
___________________________________________________________________

PGP Fingerprint: 09E4 3D29 4156 2774 0F2C  C643 D8BD 1918 2030 5AAB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJykU42L0ZGCAwWqsRAvH6AJ9joJnGlYaJ2ap2soRlWN5TwPsCxgCgx7EV
+JX3tV7ngVQmlcLPQFPexPs=
=djw4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Bjšoern Ricks-2]

> Daniel Gollub wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 March 2009 02:30:20 pm Michael Bell wrote:
> >> Daniel Gollub wrote:
> >>> I don't agree here - there are many lucky people which managed to get
> >>> 0.22 working. Updating to some 0.3x might break things again.
> >>>
> >>> They should downgrade to 0.22 for the time being. Upgrading to
> 0.40 will
> >>> be also kind of supported by configuration update helpers (e.g.
> >>> OSyncUpdater). I don't plan to support 0.36 update to 0.4x or so.
> >> Actually I think that 0.22 is in EOS state (End-Of-Support). This is
> >> what Juha and Bricks mean. I agree on this. EOS does not mean EOL. If
> >> there is a distro which want to fix it then they can do it in our or in
> >> their VCS. The simple question today is, if you want to focus on 0.40
> >> development who supports 0.22? We need real commitments here.
> > Right - who supports OpenSync 0.22? Who develops OpenSync trunk?
>
> I develop only on trunk (libwbxml and libsyncml). The SyncML plugin is
> maintained too by me. I "just" need a stable API to develop and test.
>
> > Ok - then i revoke this "decision" thing - at least in my personal
> opinion
> > things worked out quite well the last year - expect that 0.40 is not
> released
> > yet.
>
> The problem is that the last point is the only thing which is visible
> from the outside. If somebody is working on the trunk then this trunk is
> too often broken. So how should somebody start working on OpenSync if it
> breaks so often. Learning is a process which has to do with continuity.
> People can only learn to code OpenSync if there is some kind of
> continuity and this is the problem today. I don't think that there will
> be new upstream developers until 0.40 is released and there is a
> reliable code base or API.
>
> I also stopped working on the SyncML plugin for a while because the API
> changed too fast. I wait for a signal that it makes sense to adapt to
> the actual API.

I am really sorry that we broke the api so often in the last month. But
I had the feeling that all changes were announced with examples how to
fix the code for trunk. It seems to me that this wasn't the case.
Currently we try to stabilize the api and I found only one ticket which
has to break the api again http://www.opensync.org/ticket/975. This
ticket is on my agenda for this week and I'll try to make a common
pattern for all lists in opensync. On my site this ticket will be the
last api breakage. Afterwards only new interfaces will be added but no
interface will be changed (hopefully).
> > What benefit do you see if we announce in the wild that we don't
> support 0.22
> > and we don't support 0.3x? I guess this will just motivate people fork
> > OpenSync or start a new project ...
>
> The most people need a statement that 0.22 works as it is or not. So
> sometimes there are workarounds but there will be no code fixes. This
> will reduce noise.
Fully agree. Why not announce that we are only a few developers and that
we can't support 0.22 anymore? Why not close all 0.22 related tickets as
WONTFIX because of lacking manpower?
>
> > And letting distros package up 0.3x isn't a good idea either.
>
> 0.3x should never be packaged. I think we all agree here.
Yes and unfortunately a 0.3x version is in gentoo too :(

>
> > I agree that their is not much support at all in 0.22 - and my
> priority is on
> > 0.40. But i prefer to keep current setups with "old" mobiles working
> instead
> > of breaking those setups in favor of "hardware enablement".
>
> Nobody wants that those people upgrade. EOS or EOSL has nothing to do
> with EOL. There is a clear difference. If it works then there is no
> reason why they should upgrade.

Of course the shouldn't upgrade to 0.3x! They should stay with 0.22 as
long as they want. But we should announce that there is no opensync
support any more and describe in detail why we can't support it any
longer. Imho most people will understand our situation.

--
/Bjoern Ricks


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Juha Tuomala-2]

On Wednesday 25 March 2009 16:50:16 Daniel Gollub wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 March 2009 03:42:48 pm Juha Tuomala wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 March 2009 15:58:07 you wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 25 March 2009 02:30:20 pm Michael Bell wrote:
> > > > Simply all new Nokia S40 devices does not work. The most S60 devices
> > > > should not work too. So a "few" is really relative ;)
> > > I don't agree here - there are many people using not the SyncML plugin at
> > > all.
> > Plain nokia that has 40% marketshare on phones, have all syncml interface.
> > One can add other vendors that make it surely over 50-60% or more.

> OpenSync is not limited to be a Nokia PC Suite clone.
> There are people not using SyncML at all - trust me. I personally also prefer
> SyncML compared to other propitiatory protocols.

Nobody claimed otherwise. The question is, where the masses are and what
the priorities should be.

I'd say that there are hundreds of thousands or millions desktop Linux
installations with owners having syncable device in their pocket. Thus
this project is very much about the "PC Suite" case regardless of the
other possibilities or even protocols (syncml or not).

I find it quite disturbing that this is one of the *very* important
component missing from Linux desktop, lack of it is distrubing
so many people that one can find equivalent numbers of country
population from Europe and we still need to have our own discussion
about priorities.

Shouldn't we feel some kind of responsibility for our own backyard in
global Open Source community and deliver that "PC Suite"? Everyone
else seem to do so and they ship kernels, desktop environments, etc
and just because the vast userspace thinks that those are important in
people's daily lives.

This project roots are in "PC Suite" use case and imo that should be
the first priority as long as community needs it.


Tuju

--
Varo hattupäisiä autoilijoita.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Patrick Ohly]

On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 15:52 +0100, Michael Bell wrote:
> > Right - all wait for a stable release/API - but how many really actively
> > contribute to OpenSync API development?
>
> Please see above. I really think that there will be no new contributors
> until 0.40.

I have to second that. I tried to understand the architecture of the
current OpenSync trunk (see mailing list discussions about caches,
converters, capabilities, etc.) but wasn't able to get a coherent
description of it. If you want new developers, these initial steps must
be easier.

Therefore I have decided to take a "wait and see" approach for the time
being: I'm too busy to chase a moving target and to piece together the
higher-level architecture by reading code of which it is unclear whether
it implements the architecture or is simply broken.

Just my two cents, of course.

--
Bye, Patrick Ohly
--  
Patrick.Ohly@...
http://www.estamos.de/


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Juha Tuomala-2]

On Wednesday 25 March 2009 11:40:19 Juha Tuomala wrote:
> In my opinion, we should forget the 0.22 and announce it dead. It just takes
> focus and time from trunk that we don't have. Distros having 0.22 is just
> making hundreds of users to try it and it's not necessarily

> The fact is that 0.2x is dead and IMO we should say it.


I started the whole discussion so I guess it's my task to have it
properly closed too.

There were 6 who took part to the discussion and three stated
that 0.22 should be announced to end-of-support and one stated it
should remain supported.

It was also stated few times and agreed that it's quite likely
that there wont come new contributors until the 0.40 is finished
because of currently non-working trunk and complexity of the project.

It was also stated that mainly the 0.22 support has been done by
Daniel and he's also only currrently developing the engine/API for 0.40.

Daniel, you stated that you're willing to maintain the codebase and
communication yourself as before so that leads to the conclusion that
0.22 will remain supported until further noticed.

After such long period of inactivity in repository and this mail thread,
this must be clearly communicated to avoid confusion and wrong
decisions in distributions and other projects (for example there has
been multiple attempts to use 0.3x snapshot releases instead of 0.22
and recent fedora activity to revert back to 0.22).

If nobody continues this tread, this will remain the decision and I can
publish it in wiki meetings page.


Tuju

--
Varo hattupäisiä autoilijoita.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Adam Williamson-4]

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:33 +0200, Juha Tuomala wrote:

>
> On Wednesday 25 March 2009 11:40:19 Juha Tuomala wrote:
> > In my opinion, we should forget the 0.22 and announce it dead. It just takes
> > focus and time from trunk that we don't have. Distros having 0.22 is just
> > making hundreds of users to try it and it's not necessarily
>
> > The fact is that 0.2x is dead and IMO we should say it.
>
>
> I started the whole discussion so I guess it's my task to have it
> properly closed too.
>
> There were 6 who took part to the discussion and three stated
> that 0.22 should be announced to end-of-support and one stated it
> should remain supported.
>
> It was also stated few times and agreed that it's quite likely
> that there wont come new contributors until the 0.40 is finished
> because of currently non-working trunk and complexity of the project.
>
> It was also stated that mainly the 0.22 support has been done by
> Daniel and he's also only currrently developing the engine/API for 0.40.
>
> Daniel, you stated that you're willing to maintain the codebase and
> communication yourself as before so that leads to the conclusion that
> 0.22 will remain supported until further noticed.
>
> After such long period of inactivity in repository and this mail thread,
> this must be clearly communicated to avoid confusion and wrong
> decisions in distributions and other projects (for example there has
> been multiple attempts to use 0.3x snapshot releases instead of 0.22
> and recent fedora activity to revert back to 0.22).
>
> If nobody continues this tread, this will remain the decision and I can
> publish it in wiki meetings page.

To give my perspective on this:

I don't really care whether opensync.org declares 0.22 as 'supported' or
'not supported'. The fact is that it pretty much isn't; almost nothing
gets changed in the 0.22 branch of SVN at all.

However, Tuju pointed me to the thread and asked me to reconsider
reverting opensync to 0.22 in Fedora. This isn't actually my choice (I
made the initial proposal to the maintainer, but it's his choice).
Sorry, but that's just crack.

Yes, Fedora is a development-minded distribution. But there's a limit.
We can't ship the latest version of something
just-because-it's-the-latest version if it doesn't actually freaking
work. To a rough approximation, no-one anywhere can actually use
opensync 0.3 to synchronize anything with anything else.

Is shipping an old version of opensync and holding back the versions of
libwbxml and libsyncml for it ideal? No, of course it isn't. But, as I
said, even for a distribution like Fedora, we do have a vague
responsibility to ship code in our distribution that *actually works*.
Tuju is clearly coming at this from a libsyncml perspective and he's
frustrated that the use of opensync 0.2 holds back the development of
libsyncml. Yes, that's a shame. But sorry, it does not make any sense to
ask distributions to ship utterly non-working code because of it. If
libsyncml could actually be used by anything else other than opensync
the case would be very different, but it can't.

I don't want to sound negative, and I hope I won't because I know the
opensync devs agree with me: the problem here is that the development of
opensync has been done very badly. Any time you're giving your consumers
the choice of a three year old branch you don't want to maintain any
more, or a development branch which flat out doesn't work for any
practical purpose, you've screwed up. As I said, I know the opensync
developers are aware of this, and I'm not pointing fingers. Everyone
screws up all the time.

Fact is that when a screw up like this occurs, a distribution's primary
responsibility to its users is to ship something that works. If we ship
opensync 0.22, quite a lot of people will be able to synchronize their
data between devices. If we ship opensync 0.3, no-one outside of this
list will (and people on this list can roll their own). It's a pretty
easy decision.

(apologies for the email address / sig mismatch, I didn't switch a lot
of mailing list subscriptions yet. And for the record I still have
commit access to MDV, and it's not going to opensync 0.3 either).
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Daniel Gollub-2]

On Friday 27 March 2009 03:55:36 pm Adam Williamson wrote:
[...]
> Fact is that when a screw up like this occurs, a distribution's primary
> responsibility to its users is to ship something that works.
[...]

I guess i can mostly agree here - but there is one fact which got mostly
ignored, or at least are not aware of this.

If some distribution package this and ships this within a stable release -
it's not obvious to the user that the installed package is not supposed to be
"ready for productive use".

Right, the distribution is responsible for this. But how many users go
directly to the distribution and ask for a fix or help?

How many distribution just point to upstream development and tells the user to
ask the upstream people for help?

I haven't seen much patches from distributions to fix actually real functional
bugs inside 0.3x. Mostly i have seen build fixes. So i guess all the distro
shipping 0.3x just did "it compiles, let's ship it!". I guess most of you know
the QA is unfortunately not very on a high level on the Linux Desktop :(

If you follow closely the OpenSync development we spent lots of time fixing
and porting the testsuite and do heavy testing with continuous build testing.
Personally 90% of the time i only use the testsuite - not osynctool. Why? I
don't have currently time to testing anything else ...

And no - i don't synchronize my personal mobile today. It's not working for me
either. I also start doing this as soon the API is frozen and plugin
developers can catch up with last porting things.

The problem i'm  also seeing is: shipping experimental release like 0.3x just
interrupts the trunk development. Sure we need some tests which give feedback
to of the trunk development. But it would be nice if those testers are really
aware that they're _testers_ and not completely new to OpenSync and make their
first impression with an incomplete development snapshot.

Those packages get very easy installed without any warning that the stuff is
incomplete.

There was even a company developing an entire application on top of OpenSync
0.36 - because it was shipped in Fedora. They weren't aware that 0.36 was far
away from what we have today in trunk and what will be 0.40. This wasted at
least one entire week communicating with them that it's not a good idea
freezing their application on 0.36 - since we couldn't help them at all in few
month. Maintenance would be a nightmare.


So my person conclusion on this topic (since it seems i don't have enough
authority to make any decision):

- announcing 0.22 EO* before 0.40 gets for sure misunderstood at some point
(people can't read!)
- If stable distros package 0.3x (with or without communication to the user)
it will slow down our current development
- I support only two OpenSync releases: trunk and 0.22


Last but not least - to be a bit positive:
Thanks to Björn, Ian, Graham and Christian sticking with the project and for
their recent effort with the project and doing very helpful development
contribution to 0.40!

Thanks a lot!


Best Regards,
Daniel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Adam Williamson-4]

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 17:05 +0100, Daniel Gollub wrote:

> On Friday 27 March 2009 03:55:36 pm Adam Williamson wrote:
> [...]
> > Fact is that when a screw up like this occurs, a distribution's primary
> > responsibility to its users is to ship something that works.
> [...]
>
> I guess i can mostly agree here - but there is one fact which got mostly
> ignored, or at least are not aware of this.
>
> If some distribution package this and ships this within a stable release -
> it's not obvious to the user that the installed package is not supposed to be
> "ready for productive use".
>
> Right, the distribution is responsible for this. But how many users go
> directly to the distribution and ask for a fix or help?
>
> How many distribution just point to upstream development and tells the user to
> ask the upstream people for help?
>
> I haven't seen much patches from distributions to fix actually real functional
> bugs inside 0.3x. Mostly i have seen build fixes. So i guess all the distro
> shipping 0.3x just did "it compiles, let's ship it!". I guess most of you know
> the QA is unfortunately not very on a high level on the Linux Desktop :(

Yes, you're certainly right here. Mandriva was bumped to 0.3 by someone
who was doing drive-by updates of 'outdated' packages. He never tested
that the updated packages did anything at all.

Fedora was bumped, as close as I can tell, for the KDE 4 'requirement' -
despite the fact that KDE 4 couldn't actually do anything useful with
0.3 (and neither could anything else).

When I wrote the paragraph you quote I wasn't saying that, up to this
point, distributions had been doing the right thing - they haven't.
Shipping 0.3 was a really dumb idea and no distribution should have done
it, and it indicates that people were maintaining opensync in
distributions without actually testing it or caring if it worked, which
is never a good thing.

Distributions certainly have a hand in this mess. That's why I got
Mandriva reverted to code which actually works, and extensively
documented how to use it, and wrote patches to Kitchensync and other
bits and researched patches from synce and barry and various other
upstream projects and spent hours testing with a box of various bits of
hardware and making screencap videos to upload to Youtube to show people
how to do it. And that's why I'm now trying to get the same done for
Fedora.

> If you follow closely the OpenSync development we spent lots of time fixing
> and porting the testsuite and do heavy testing with continuous build testing.
> Personally 90% of the time i only use the testsuite - not osynctool. Why? I
> don't have currently time to testing anything else ...
>
> And no - i don't synchronize my personal mobile today. It's not working for me
> either. I also start doing this as soon the API is frozen and plugin
> developers can catch up with last porting things.
>
> The problem i'm  also seeing is: shipping experimental release like 0.3x just
> interrupts the trunk development. Sure we need some tests which give feedback
> to of the trunk development. But it would be nice if those testers are really
> aware that they're _testers_ and not completely new to OpenSync and make their
> first impression with an incomplete development snapshot.
>
> Those packages get very easy installed without any warning that the stuff is
> incomplete.
>
> There was even a company developing an entire application on top of OpenSync
> 0.36 - because it was shipped in Fedora. They weren't aware that 0.36 was far
> away from what we have today in trunk and what will be 0.40. This wasted at
> least one entire week communicating with them that it's not a good idea
> freezing their application on 0.36 - since we couldn't help them at all in few
> month. Maintenance would be a nightmare.
>
>
> So my person conclusion on this topic (since it seems i don't have enough
> authority to make any decision):
>
> - announcing 0.22 EO* before 0.40 gets for sure misunderstood at some point
> (people can't read!)
> - If stable distros package 0.3x (with or without communication to the user)
> it will slow down our current development
> - I support only two OpenSync releases: trunk and 0.22

Absolutely. Shipping a 0.3 release doesn't help anyone; it's useless for
the distribution and it doesn't help upstream development. Shipping and
continuously updating a trunk snapshot would be more useful to upstream
development but still doesn't let anyone actually *use* opensync for any
practical purpose - and, as I said, even for a development-minded distro
like Fedora, there's a limit. We wouldn't ship, say, a development
branch of the kernel which didn't boot on any real hardware, just to
'help upstream development'.

The only sane choice for distributions is to ship 0.22 and be aware that
the primary responsibility for making it actually work, and supporting
their users in the mechanics of getting it to work, is theirs, not
upstream's.

As I said, I'm aware that this is annoying for people whose primary
interest is in SyncML. And believe me I know that the opensync 0.22 /
libsyncml combination isn't perfect: my test Nokia device doesn't work
with that setup at all (only with the gnokii plugin), and neither does
the other test Nokia device I've had feedback about.

To them I say - if you provide any kind of software which can actually
do anything remotely useful with libsyncml > 0.4.6, then I will be first
in line to advocate that Fedora starts shipping it as well as 0.4.6.
Provide some kind of application aside from opensync which uses
libsyncml to do something some real user would actually want to do, and
I will become your biggest cheerleader in getting that stack into Fedora
(and if I can find a spare few hours I will personally put it into
Mandriva). But as long as the only thing libsyncml 0.5.x can do is build
against opensync 0.3 and then sit there doing nothing useful - there is
absolutely no point in a distribution shipping it.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Michael Banck-3]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 05:05:58PM +0100, Daniel Gollub wrote:
> If some distribution package this and ships this within a stable release -
> it's not obvious to the user that the installed package is not supposed to be
> "ready for productive use".
>
> Right, the distribution is responsible for this. But how many users go
> directly to the distribution and ask for a fix or help?
>
> How many distribution just point to upstream development and tells the user to
> ask the upstream people for help?

Well, at least Debian has the policy that users should file a bug in its
Bug Tracking System first, and the maintainer should then evaluate
whether that bug is Debian-specific or upstream.  In the latter case the
bug gets either fixed by the maintainer, forwarded to upstream or
ignored.

I pretty much gave up on forwarding 0.22 bugs to the opensync trac
because I felt that they would not get much attention anyway.

> I haven't seen much patches from distributions to fix actually real
> functional bugs inside 0.3x.

The reason is probably similar to what Michael Bell and Patrick Ohly
wrote - if even plugin developers cannot constructively contribute code
because the core is either too complex or moving too fast, the same is
probably true for the distribution maintainers (or anybody else I
guess).

> The problem i'm  also seeing is: shipping experimental release like
> 0.3x just interrupts the trunk development.

However, they also represent a defined meta-frozen API in time,
something plugin developers can potentionally look at as "this revision
is probably rather stable compared to any other random revision, so is a
good starting point for me porting my plugin to".  Otherwise, plugin
developers will have to look at trunk when they have some time to tend
to their plugin, and in the (not unlikely) case that trunk is currently
undergoing some API transition, they will lose time getting up to speed,
maybe.

But anyway, the above point is hopefull moot now that opensync is
converging towards a stable API.

> - announcing 0.22 EO* before 0.40 gets for sure misunderstood at some
> point (people can't read!) - If stable distros package 0.3x (with or
> without communication to the user) it will slow down our current
> development - I support only two OpenSync releases: trunk and 0.22

I agree, I don't see any point in making a statement about 0.22 right
now.  There should be a statement when the opensync maintainers consider
a 0.3x/0.4x release "mostly as good as 0.22", though I guess.
 
> Last but not least - to be a bit positive: Thanks to Björn, Ian,
> Graham and Christian sticking with the project and for their recent
> effort with the project and doing very helpful development
> contribution to 0.40!

Certainly!


Michael

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel

[Juha Tuomala-2]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

I'm sorry that following is lenghty, i tried to cut it short.

On Friday 27 March 2009 16:55:36 Adam Williamson wrote:
> However, Tuju pointed me to the thread and asked me to reconsider
> reverting opensync to 0.22 in Fedora.

I've tried to communicate with all Fedora package maintainers when
needed to keep *all* the packages in such shape so that fedora users
could actually take part to this project by testing and getting
involved into development. An example:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460917#c5
> sorry for the delay. I have lost interrest for wbxml2

and then the bug never got fixed. That wbxml package had to be manually
removed and compiled to be able to join to this project. But most likely
you stumble few days with wierd errors until you come and ask help.

I provided a patches and fixed spec, but "I have lost interrest" was
already in effect and still is, since F9 is still supported release.
I suggested to take over but got no reply.

Fedora shipped 0.3x caused a lot of wasted hours in serious userspace
projects as others thought it is a release.

> We can't ship the latest version of something just-because-it's-the-latest
> version if it doesn't actually freaking work.

Nobody has asked it, fedora folks did it by themselves.
After that I wrote banner into web front page to avoid more such damage.
It also reads in this mail thread, if you read it, did you?

It was no secret that it was not meant to be distributed, *everyone*
knew that who followed the project a bit.

I asked KDE SIG to drop kitchensync, they did. I asked opensync
maintainer to _drop_ opensync, but he opted not to and will send
tens of endusers to consume time from development and get support for 0.22.

As you read from this thread, shipping 0.22 would:
- take time from only one who committed to maintain 0.22
- take time from the only one who can actually finish the 0.40
- push the release even further to the future.

I suggested that fedora doesn't ship anything, since there is anything.

> the problem here is that the development of opensync has been done very badly.

No. The problem is that there is too much to do with this manpower.
Daniel for has done huge personal commitment for project and we all
owe him big for that and should keep the eye in the ball right now.

I did try to talk you in irc before you posted here but before you heard
what I have to say, you shouted "Bullshit!" and I thought that you don't
want to listen.

I didn't refer that nonsense about me suggesting to keep the 0.3x and
libsyncml stuff, don't know where those came but everyone here knows
what I think. :-D

All i tried to say, that ship what works and is supported: wbxml & libsyncml

Tuju

--
Varo hattupäisiä autoilijoita.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Opensync-devel mailing list
Opensync-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensync-devel