How does this git repo relate to the one at Using github would make it easier to keep repositories in sync (I think)

On Apr 16, 2014 10:05 PM, "Patrick Ohly" <> wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 19:43 +0200, Emiliano Heyns wrote:
> More specifically, I think we need to converge, not diverge the
> terminology. I *have* diverted from the existing syncevolution
> terminology where I think they suggest commonality where there is
> none; perhaps the technical implementation of the configuration of
> target-config and sync config share code, but if my understanding of
> them is correct, their behavior is non-trivially different, and that I
> have reflected in new naming.
> I am in no way specifically enamored by the new names I introduced,
> and I'll gladly swap them for others, but to have 3 sets of terms in
> play is not going to be helpful I think.

I agree, we need to agree on updated terminology and (where necessary)
functional changes before we can adapt HOWTOs. The problem with the
HOWTOs is (and always has been) that many users will be on SyncEvolution
1.4 or even older for a while to come.

Any new HOWTO depending on new functionality will have to be very
explicit about the version of SyncEvolution that it depends on, and we
cannot remove the "old" content that it replaces right away.

Regarding converging: we can follow two approaches or perhaps phases.

First we reach consensus on key terms. Contentious (or at least not
explicitly accepted) are:

      * "originating source" in a local sync (proposed by me).
      * "source" vs. "store" (I think both Todd and Emile preferred
      * "Client Endpoints" instead of "sync configs" (Emile)
      * "Synced stores" as new term for the per-peer source properties

The next phase then would be to pick the exact wording for README.rst,
using these agreed terms. We should do this using git commits in actual
repos, to facilitate merging and change tracking. If someone wants to
propose new text for the README.rst, please clone the new "doc" branch
in and
post patches in "git format-patch" style to the list. Optionally also
push the updated git tree somewhere (github?), in particular if it
involves merges.

I've push my own proposal there, but it is not final because I think I
will pick up more of your proposals once their is consensus on terms.

Regarding the new terms, here's my position:

+1 for "originating source". I think it is needed.

+1 for "store" instead of "source". I agree with Todd's explanation that
the source incorrectly implies a data direction.

-1 for "Client Endpoints". This is misleading because the same thing is
also needed for servers. "sync config" covers both because it is

-1 "Synced stores". This just doesn't sound right to me, but I cannot
quite nail why. Perhaps because I simply don't think of this as real
entities, just as some additional settings for a source (or soon,

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.