Fw: [patch] Synchronization of the panels (fwd)

[Siver Andrey]

Sorry, I e-mailed a message not to the main list:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Siver Andrey" <siver at sirius.ihep.su>
To: "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel at ximian.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [patch] Synchronization of the panels (fwd)


> Hi All,
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel at ximian.com>
> To: "Pavel Tsekov" <ptsekov at gmx.net>
> Cc: "MC dev" <mc-devel at gnome.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 7:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [patch] Synchronization of the panels (fwd)
>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > The patch still needs a lot of work, for example, why do we have an
> > include file at all with the code?  (The core of the code lives in
> > sync.inc).
>
> It's not a problem if it's the last problem (it's easy to embed sync.inc
> straight into main.c).
>
> > Configure patches, fall back patches are missing as well.
>
> I would like to ask somebody to update configure scripts (WITH_SYNC need
to
> be defined if kernel version >= 2.4. If it's not defined - the patch gives
> nothing new, so I do not understand what do you mean by "fall back
> patches").
>
> Is anybody ready to do it?
>
> >
> > Miguel.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mc-devel mailing list
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
> >
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel at ximian.com>
> To: "Oswald Buddenhagen" <ossi at kde.org>; "Siver Andrey"
> <siver at sirius.ihep.su>
> Cc: <mc-devel at gnome.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 7:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [patch] Synchronization of the panels
>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > It could be argued that if mc is watching a directory, mc is in that
> > directory so unmounting should not be an issue at this point,
>
> >but
> > adopting something like inotify in the long run seems like a better
> > option.
>
> What do you mean ("the long run" ?) ?
>
> > The other problem with the patch is that it lacks the configure magic to
> > work on non-dnotify systems, and also lacks support for not aborting if
> > the code is not available in the current kernel.
>
> I added error processing for 'fcntl' function: if it returns error
signal -
> nothing bad will happen (as I guess).
>
> >
> > The patch is a nice one, but it needs to be productized.
> >
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andrey
>