On So, 2011-01-09 at 01:07 +, Chris Frey wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 07:56:00PM -0500, Chris Frey wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 09:40:01PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
My right to post to the OpenSync mailing list was revoked, so I'm afraid
only people subscribed to the
On Di, 2011-01-04 at 16:12 +, Michael Bell wrote:
I know that usually such discussions are off list but a mailing list is
a good archiving and transparent method. I hope you can accept this. So
yes, I think it was the right decision from Patrick and Daniel to post
this on the list.
My
On Sa, 2011-01-08 at 20:47 +, Emanoil Kotsev wrote:
but I was just able to read your posting
Re: [Opensync-devel] libsynthesis and vformats
From:
Patrick Ohly patrick.ohly-ral2jqcrhueavxtiumw...@public.gmane.org
Date:
Sat 08 Jan 2011 20:52:36
Because I did a group-reply, which
Hi Lukas,
On 01/05/11 16:26, Lukas Zeller wrote:
I mean, even we had perfect integration of SyncML, CalDAV, ActiveSync
etc. today, I feel it would still not cover everyday sync needs I
have today, let alone in the future. With the explosion of endpoints
(devices) on one side and data
Hello all,
Coincidentally right now I am looking into what could be the long-term future
of my efforts that went into libsynthesis, now that I am no longer with
Synthesis, but again independent and free :-)
I very much welcome efforts to join forces to make sync better, as I must admit
that
Hello!
Let me add the SyncEvolution list, because the technical information may
be relevant. For those who see this for the first time, it started with
an open letter that I sent to the OpenSync list asking whether it really
still makes sense to continue with two different projects instead of
Hi all,
On Tuesday 04 January 2011 10.04:39 Patrick Ohly wrote:
Let me add the SyncEvolution list, because the technical information may
be relevant. For those who see this for the first time, it started with
an open letter that I sent to the OpenSync list asking whether it really
still makes
On Di, 2011-01-04 at 14:11 +0100, Daniel Gollub wrote:
Currently i don't see syncevolutaion is replacing OpenSync today. Maybe it
will some when in the future. Maybe not. It could disappear like other Sync
approaches due to various reasons. I'm not going to declare OpenSync as dead.
I
[dropping OpenSync list, as discussed there]
On Di, 2011-01-04 at 17:12 +0100, Michael Bell wrote:
Hi Patrick,
I think an important foot note is the question which goals the projects
have. I am personally (as IT manager of a university) see three general
needs in terms of synchronization:
Hi,
just let me add some random thoughts to this topic:
Am Dienstag, den 04.01.2011, 20:04 +0100 schrieb Patrick Ohly:
On Di, 2011-01-04 at 17:12 +0100, Michael Bell wrote:
Hi Patrick,
I think an important foot note is the question which goals the projects
have. I am personally (as IT
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 23:23:29 +0100, Frederik Elwert wrote:
[...]
I don’t know where you would include this use case, but I personally see
the primary use of SyncEvolution in cross-desktop sync.
I also think that this a key feature of Syncevolution: a self-contained
solution to not only
11 matches
Mail list logo
