I really do think my latest version captures the major concepts and the basic useful operations you can perform on them. It's laced with examples - if I got this iteration right, my next step is to rewrite the other how-tos in that vein.
More specifically, I think we need to converge, not diverge the terminology. I *have* diverted from the existing syncevolution terminology where I think they suggest commonality where there is none; perhaps the technical implementation of the configuration of target-config and sync config share code, but if my understanding of them is correct, their behavior is non-trivially different, and that I have reflected in new naming. I am in no way specifically enamored by the new names I introduced, and I'll gladly swap them for others, but to have 3 sets of terms in play is not going to be helpful I think. Emile On Apr 16, 2014 6:42 PM, "Patrick Ohly" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 08:56 -0700, Todd Wilson wrote: > > I'll revise and expand my personal version of the README based on the > > comments you've given and repost. As I expected, there were several > > aspects of SyncEvolution I was only partially understanding, and I'll > > try to read through the documentation again with your comments in > > mind. Since my main conceptual misunderstanding concerned the > > relationship between databases and peers, could you give some extra > > explanation and perhaps examples to help me out? > > I am not sure what additional explanation I can give beyond what was > already said in the mail threads and in the revised README. > > Some examples can be found in the HOWTO on the item manipulation > operations: > https://syncevolution.org/wiki/item-operations > > This mostly just passes the required properties on the command line, but > all of the examples also work if you do a "--configure @somecontext > somesource" with the properties first and the just use "@somecontext > somesource" at the end of the command line. > > > -- > 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
