著者: sajolida 日付: To: The Tails public development discussion list 題目: Re: [Tails-dev] keeping up with transports
intrigeri: > sajolida wrote (24 Nov 2014 17:24:57 GMT) :
>> In an intent to make all this digestible for the user documentation
>> maybe we can try to summarize that. (I'm trying to find a way to have
>> this fit in the main doc here not in the FAQ.)
>
> I'm not convinced that this information can possibly be relevant for
> the end-user doc.
I'm not sure either, but I don't find it irrelevant there. Let me elaborate.
> If I got it right, the problem we're trying to solve
> here is the lack of clear information for frontdesk to explain why $PT
> is not supported yet.
Actually, even before they reach frontdesk, I want explain to the user
what PTs do we support and why we don't support all the PTs
available in the latest Tor Browser and in the world. I think that the
latest is a legitimate question for our users to have.
If so, then having a precise list of technical requirements in the
Contribute section is not enough. And we need an end user explanation
either in the FAQ, Known issue, or Documentation section. It seems
pretty clear to me that this fits in
/doc/first_steps/startup_options/bridge_mode, so I'd prefer pushing it
there than into a never-ending FAQ.
To me it look very similar to the paragraph we have about "Adding
support for another protocol" for Pidgin in
/doc/anonymous_internet/pidgin.html#index4h1. And if I remember
correctly, you were the one proposing it :)
> I've got a feeling that the solution being
> worked on here is overkill to address this need.
My plan was to understand the technicalities first, and then try to
summarize them in a digestible form for our users. In the end we might
also need to have the complete technicalities stored somewhere.
> As said earlier, I think I would put that all in some
> contribute/design/* sub-page, and possibly point there from a "Why
> isn't $PT supported" FAQ, or similar.
Agreed, the summarized form would point to the technicalities.
>> Regarding "Being supported by the Tor AppArmor profile we ship", is this
>> work specific to Tails or does it need to be upstream somewhere?
>
> That's work that needs to be done upstream.
>
>> Regarding "Being supported by enough bridges" and "Adding some value to
>> the already supported PTs", once in Debian and in Tor Launcher, which
>> should kind of proves the relevance and widen the deployment of the
>> transport, do we see ourselves in a position of saying "no, this bridge
>> is not deployed enough or not useful enough for us to include it"?
>
> Depends if the request has a patch attached :)
>
> In other words, if *we* have to do the work, then yes, I think these
> criteria are useful to set our priorities.
