Re: [SyncEvolution] Website: "peers"
On Fr, 2011-09-09 at 18:25 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 17:58 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> The overall goal with syncevolution.org was to give users an idea of
> what is known to work and what isn't. In this case the answer for
> certain cases is "we don't know" - I still find it better to spell
> that
> non-answer out somewhere, ideally somewhere where the user looks for
> it,
> instead of having him search the whole site for an answer that can't
> be
> found.
But are you ever likely to mention indirect combinations that do work or
to mention combinations that you don't know work.
In the Wiki users can do whatever they want, but it's unlikely that the
compatibility page itself will ever go into that.
At the moment there's
just a long-winded way of saying that something might not work.
I'm not trying to defend the language, only the intention behind it ;-}
If you have a better way of saying "here's what we know, for anything
beyond this you are on your own - oh, and your mileage may wary" then
please, change the text.
--
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.