On Fri, 2014-04-18 at 23:51 +0200, Emiliano Heyns wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Ohly, Patrick > <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think we have consensus on the revised terminology. My > updated readme will need further changes. > > I understand that it will; I'll keep tracking those changes. I feel I > sort of have a grasp on things now, and I want to start writing while > it's fresh in my mind. If the conceptual model that I have in my head > is wrong, it'll need revising anyhow. If the model is OK but the > terminology is off, that should be easy enough to fix. I find it > easier in general to have something flawed out for correction than to > try and aim for perfection before starting; it's easier to point out > flaws than to built something without flaws. I don't mind rework.
Okay. I was just worried that you might get disappointed when the terminology changes again. > You're German? I hadn't figured that from your English. You should hear me talk... ;-} -- 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
