Before. I'm partway through switching to gdbus too, which fixes the extra handle for progress indication and will affect how we marshal errors. -- dwmw2 (Apologies for HTML and top-posting; Android mailer is broken.) Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com&gt; wrote: On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 15:03 +0000, Woodhouse, David wrote: Might be, but I don't know how that would work. Filed as https://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=23618 This is an API change/extension. Should it be done before releasing the ActiveSync libs as 1.0 or later? To me, 1.0 kind of implies that we have the API ironed out for apps to use it. In this case we are asking apps to use hacks to achieve the desired result because the API is not quite complete yet. I'd rather call it 0.9, then do the API clean-up and finally bump to 1.0. Just my 2 cents, of course. -- 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. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list SyncEvolution(a)syncevolution.org http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution