On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 09:15 +0100, Jussi Kukkonen wrote:
On 04/28/2010 04:49 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> Attached is a copy. What do you think about these changes? Any spelling
> mistakes, unclear statements, etc.?
I've read it through and it looks pretty good. I mean, it is really long
but for man page and README that makes sense: the subject matter is
complex and the text gives a thorough description as it should.
That said, I might not be the best evaluator for how thorough it is and
whether it has any unspoken "required knowledge", having worked on a
client for some time... If there's anyone on the list who is interested
in syncevolution and would like to contribute: Now is an excellent time,
previous experience not required: just read and comment.
"Silence is golden" - let's go ahead with the current text in 1.0. I'd
like to minimize changes at this time, so I won't touch the builtin
usage information, but for 1.1 the same text should also be used for
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.