On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 11:17 +0600, Ildar Mulyukov wrote:
As promised, my 1st proposal (in two parts).
1. As Patrick confirms, "Contexts are profiles independent of each
But I didn't use the word profile, did I?
a. the "Context" word is quite inconvenient and ...
"context-specific", it isn't clear enough for understanding. Maybe it's
worth to use the "profile" word for that, leaving "context" as a
term meaning a _profile_.
For me, "profile" sounds more like a flat, predefined or editable set of
options. A quick Google search for "configuration profile" brings up for
example "Configuration Profiles" in Wireshark:
Or "profile configuration files", .pcf.
These "profiles" match with SyncEvolution's "templates", not the
b. For syncevolution cmdline tool: Move it from the
to a --profile <profile name>. Again, for clear understanding.
I agree that changing the command line would be worthwhile. Giving
configuration and sources via positional arguments made it very hard to
check for syntax errors or typos. It's a big change, though, which
renders all existing HOWTOs invalid.
Whether it is worth having a separate --profile (or --context) switch is
open for debate. Would you also change all output which currently uses
the @<context> notation?
What do ya think?
I'd like to hear from more users what they think about this. What I see
primarily are the negative effects (incompatible command line changes,
the work for implementing all this, risk of new bugs), so I'd like to
get some kind of confirmation that it would be worthwhile.
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.