Hi, sajolida wrote (24 Nov 2014 17:24:57 GMT) : > In an intent to make all this digestible for the user documentation > maybe we can try to summarize that. (I'm trying to find a way to have > this fit in the main doc here not in the FAQ.)
I'm not convinced that this information can possibly be relevant for the end-user doc. If I got it right, the problem we're trying to solve here is the lack of clear information for frontdesk to explain why $PT is not supported yet. I've got a feeling that the solution being worked on here is overkill to address this need. As said earlier, I think I would put that all in some contribute/design/* sub-page, and possibly point there from a "Why isn't $PT supported" FAQ, or similar. > Regarding "Being supported by the Tor AppArmor profile we ship", is this > work specific to Tails or does it need to be upstream somewhere? That's work that needs to be done upstream. > Regarding "Being supported by enough bridges" and "Adding some value to > the already supported PTs", once in Debian and in Tor Launcher, which > should kind of proves the relevance and widen the deployment of the > transport, do we see ourselves in a position of saying "no, this bridge > is not deployed enough or not useful enough for us to include it"? Depends if the request has a patch attached :) In other words, if *we* have to do the work, then yes, I think these criteria are useful to set our priorities. Cheers, -- intrigeri _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to [email protected].
