On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 17:17 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Fr, 2011-09-09 at 16:20 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 10:25 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > On Fr, 2011-09-02 at 09:56 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > > Is there any reason to refer to "peers" here instead of "services"? > > > > http://syncevolution.org/documentation/compatibility > > > > > > Peers also includes things like mobile phones, services doesn't. That's > > > the main reason. Feel free to make this more readable. > > > > > > That such peers work is not documented well (ehem, at all?) on the page, > > > though. There is only the Wiki pages side bar which lists pages tagged > > > appropriately. > > > > And what does it mean by "indirectly" synchronizing data? Is that > > something people are likely to be interested in? > > What I meant are combinations like "Evolution <SyncEvolution> Google > <SyncML/ActiveSync> 'some mobile phone or Windows PC'".
How can SyncEvolution influence what happens after Google in that situation? Likewise how can Syncevolution be influenced by the SyncML/ActiveSync bit when going in the other direction? I can imagine it triggering certain side-effects, but are they a big deal? > The page is only > about the compatibility between peers that SyncEvolution directly talks > to (Google in this example), but not about the involved parties that > SyncEvolution doesn't even know about (the Windows PC). > > Such combinations are indeed relevant for users, but documenting them > would be a lot of testing and writing work. Therefore the web page > intentionally focuses on the part that involves SyncEvolution. That's > what the first paragraph is supposed to mean. I guess that as a) The combinations haven't been tested throughly. b) They never will be. c) We don't even mention known problems, let alone mention the (hopefully more) known successes. c) When something doesn't work, it's a bug and should just be filed rather than just documented. OK, so some things can't be fixed by SyncEvolution, but again, that's not really SyncEvolution's problem. then it would be best to just not mention it. Or just mention that other parts of the synchronization situation could trigger problems. -- [email protected] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
