On Fr, 2010-02-19 at 08:00 +0000, Jussi Kukkonen wrote: > I'm open to improvement suggestions on the error message wording though: > I'm not too familiar with what exactly all the different error codes > mean...
I think we are all learning about this. Let's see what the reason was in this particular case. > As an example, should we emphasize that this "db error" is > reported by the peer (so not a local db problem)? Distinguishing between local and remote errors would be useful, independently of this particular error. It is a first hint to the user who he should contact for help, or whether the problem might go away (remote failures might get fixed by the server admins, local ones require some action by the user). > Are there any common > fixes we could suggest in the message? Nothing comes to my mind right now. -- 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 [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
