On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 17:58 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > The overall goal with syncevolution.org was to give users an idea of > what is known to work and what isn't. In this case the answer for > certain cases is "we don't know" - I still find it better to spell > that > non-answer out somewhere, ideally somewhere where the user looks for > it, > instead of having him search the whole site for an answer that can't > be > found.
But are you ever likely to mention indirect combinations that do work or to mention combinations that you don't know work. At the moment there's just a long-winded way of saying that something might not work. -- [email protected] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
