On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 14:35 +0000, Emiliano Heyns wrote: > On 02/04/2014 16:20:58, "Graham Cobb" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >On 02/04/14 13:16, Patrick Ohly wrote: > >> FWIW, here's the terminology section from the README. It's meant to > >> introduce concepts from scratch, i.e. nothing should depend on > >>anything > >> not defined yet. > > > >I appreciate the effort that has gone into this: I have read it many > >times, and I even had it to hand while writing my earlier reply to > >Emile. But I have to say that it has never helped me as much as I would > >like :-) > > > >I realise this is my failing, but I have always found it very hard to > >understand what is going on with these. I am getting better as I do > >more, but I have been using SE for quite a while now and still am lost > >with configuration half the time. > > > I'm relieved it's not just me being dense. I am experiencing the same > difficulties.
You are certainly not alone. The problem is that no-one has been able to come up with a better proposal, much less a proposal and a matching implementation. > This is why I'd love to work through the use-cases, applying the correct > terminology to the examples; doing so ought to make the other HOWTO's a > lot easier to understand, as the reader could draw parallels from a good > understanding of the concepts, rather than trying to distill the meaning > from HOWTO's. Sounds like the right approach. If you end up with a new proposal for how things should work or be described, feel free to write it up even if you can't implement it yourself. -- 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] https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
