On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 14:35 +0000, Emiliano Heyns wrote:
On 02/04/2014 16:20:58, "Graham Cobb"
<g+syncevolution(a)cobb.uk.net>
wrote:
>On 02/04/14 13:16, Patrick Ohly wrote:
>> FWIW, here's the terminology section from the README. It's meant to
>> introduce concepts from scratch, i.e. nothing should depend on
>>anything
>> not defined yet.
>
>I appreciate the effort that has gone into this: I have read it many
>times, and I even had it to hand while writing my earlier reply to
>Emile. But I have to say that it has never helped me as much as I would
>like :-)
>
>I realise this is my failing, but I have always found it very hard to
>understand what is going on with these. I am getting better as I do
>more, but I have been using SE for quite a while now and still am lost
>with configuration half the time.
>
I'm relieved it's not just me being dense. I am experiencing the same
difficulties.
You are certainly not alone.
The problem is that no-one has been able to come up with a better
proposal, much less a proposal and a matching implementation.
This is why I'd love to work through the use-cases, applying the
correct
terminology to the examples; doing so ought to make the other HOWTO's a
lot easier to understand, as the reader could draw parallels from a good
understanding of the concepts, rather than trying to distill the meaning
from HOWTO's.
Sounds like the right approach. If you end up with a new proposal for
how things should work or be described, feel free to write it up even if
you can't implement it yourself.
--
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.