On 20.09.2012 12:52:34, Patrick Ohly wrote:
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
> 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
options. A quick Google search for "configuration profile" brings up
example "Configuration Profiles" in Wireshark:
Or "profile configuration files", .pcf.
These "profiles" match with SyncEvolution's "templates", not the
Mozilla profiles come to me a lot quicker. Ok, maybe profile is
imperfect here, but it's much more intuitive for this case, IMHO.
But I agree, someone has to come and judge us :)
> 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
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
open for debate. Would you also change all output which currently uses
the @<context> notation?
Might have a soft move allowing both new and old notation with warning
when a user uses old one. After all, "contexts" aren't used by dumb GUI
users, so mid and expert users can adopt quickly.
Ildar Mulyukov, free SW designer/programmer
ALT Linux Sisyphus