On Fr, 2011-09-09 at 18:25 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > 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.
In the Wiki users can do whatever they want, but it's unlikely that the compatibility page itself will ever go into that. > At the moment there's > just a long-winded way of saying that something might not work. I'm not trying to defend the language, only the intention behind it ;-} If you have a better way of saying "here's what we know, for anything beyond this you are on your own - oh, and your mileage may wary" then please, change the text. -- 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
