Re: [SyncEvolution] Website: "peers"
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 17:17 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
On Fr, 2011-09-09 at 16:20 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 10:25 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Fr, 2011-09-02 at 09:56 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > Is there any reason to refer to "peers" here instead of
"services"?
> > > http://syncevolution.org/documentation/compatibility
> >
> > Peers also includes things like mobile phones, services doesn't.
That's
> > the main reason. Feel free to make this more readable.
> >
> > That such peers work is not documented well (ehem, at all?) on the page,
> > though. There is only the Wiki pages side bar which lists pages tagged
> > appropriately.
>
> And what does it mean by "indirectly" synchronizing data? Is that
> something people are likely to be interested in?
What I meant are combinations like "Evolution <SyncEvolution> Google
<SyncML/ActiveSync> 'some mobile phone or Windows PC'".
How can SyncEvolution influence what happens after Google in that
situation? Likewise how can Syncevolution be influenced by the
SyncML/ActiveSync bit when going in the other direction? I can imagine
it triggering certain side-effects, but are they a big deal?
The page is only
about the compatibility between peers that SyncEvolution directly talks
to (Google in this example), but not about the involved parties that
SyncEvolution doesn't even know about (the Windows PC).
Such combinations are indeed relevant for users, but documenting them
would be a lot of testing and writing work. Therefore the web page
intentionally focuses on the part that involves SyncEvolution. That's
what the first paragraph is supposed to mean.
I guess that as
a) The combinations haven't been tested throughly.
b) They never will be.
c) We don't even mention known problems, let alone
mention the (hopefully more) known successes.
c) When something doesn't work, it's a bug and should
just be filed rather than just documented. OK, so
some things can't be fixed by SyncEvolution, but
again, that's not really SyncEvolution's problem.
then it would be best to just not mention it. Or just mention that other
parts of the synchronization situation could trigger problems.
--
murrayc(a)murrayc.com
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com