[Server-devel] Fwd: [ejabberd] Fix or workaround for EJAB-731 - shared roster fails to show new user accts
guillaume.desmottes at collabora.co.uk
Mon Dec 22 06:30:06 EST 2008
Le samedi 20 décembre 2008 à 18:13 -0200, Martin Langhoff a écrit :
> Hi Guillaume,
> Badlop has posted a new patch that I want to test. It conflicts with a
> patch you've introduced to our build,
> recent_online_and_rearby_groups_updated.diff -- two questions
> - Do we need this patch to interop with 8.2 correctly? What does it do?
IIRC, this patch introduced new type of shared roster: @online@,
@recent@ and @nearby at . Vanilla ejabberd only supports @all at .
> - Have you tested "vanilla" ejabberd for the bugs reported in EJAB-730/731?
Yes. That's why I always mention @all@ instead of @online@ in the
reports, but the problems were the same.
> In the short term, I'm building an rpm to test here - with lop's
> patch, and without yours. Have made any attempt at a merge - but can
> try if you tell me it's needed. (Not that I know much erlang or
> ejabberd internals, but getting there. Help welcome.)
I think if things are working fine with this patch using the @all@
shared roster, there is good chance that fixes @online@ as well.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff at gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ejabberd] Fix or workaround for EJAB-731 - shared roster
> fails to show new user accts
> To: ejabberd at jabber.ru
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Martin Langhoff
> <martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> - is there an altrnative workaround, something to force ejabberd to
> >>> re-scan its list of users without a restart?
> >> Yes, check
> >> https://support.process-one.net/browse/EJAB-731
> >> That new patch for ejabberd 2.0.2 fixes this and other problems
> >> related to Shared Roster. There is a comment at the bottom of the page
> >> with explanation of the changes.
> >> If you try the patch, please tell me if all seems to work correctly.
> > Right - following that discussion, you are saying that the patch that
> > fixed EJAB-71 should fix it, correct? But we are seeing the problem on
> I misread initially - thinking of the discussion in EJAB-730, that
> points to EJAB-71. I've now seen the new patch and I've built a new
> rpm with it. Will be testing tomorrow or Monday.
> martin.langhoff at gmail.com
> martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
> - ask interesting questions
> - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
> - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
More information about the Server-devel