Author: intrigeri Date: To: The Tails public development discussion list Subject: Re: [Tails-dev] keeping up with transports
Hi,
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. 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. I've got a feeling that the solution being
worked on here is overkill to address this need.
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.
> 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.
