Re: [Evolution-hackers] Re: Evolution string-freeze breakage

man, 11,.10.2004 kl. 23.30 +0200, skrev Danilo Šegan:
> Hi Kjartan,
> Today at 23:09, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
> > man, 11,.10.2004 kl. 22.26 +0200, skrev Danilo Šegan:
> >> That would be best for 2.8.1 from translation POV I suppose. If you
> >> don't consider it a major problem in usability from Evo side of
> >> things, that's what I'd like to see.
> >> 
> > I read your earlier message on this subject as being ok with keeping
> > things as they are now for this release since there's shortage of time
> > and since quite a few translations had been updated already.
> Well, that's what I said at first.  But JP seemed to indicate that
> they have enough time to revert this, and talked about what will
> happen if strings are removed.  I'm not really familiar with the
> extent of the unexpected behaviour this will cause (and how common
> this misbehaviour will be), so if neither Christian nor you answered,
> I wanted to let JP know that it's mostly up to him.
But we need to try and sound like we have consensus too, unless we want
to confuse him...

> (Also, 11 translations is not really 'quite a few' considering we have
> 43 supported languages, but it's a respectable number, all things
> considered)
12 since I updated mine ;-)

> > I don't want to approve a change if people don't agree with it, but
> > reverting will cause some work and if it's supposed to be released today
> > I'm not sure we've got time.
> These were completely new strings, i.e. old strings have stayed in
> AFAICT.  This means that removing them now means that even updated
> translations won't suffer (i.e. they will stay complete if they're
> complete now).  That's why I don't mind even removing them
> completely at this stage.  I see no regressions, but I may be wrong.
> So, it all depends on evaluating impact of the bug.  I never wanted
> to present myself as the authority, since that's what you represent. :)
> I just gave some options to JP, since he's looking for a quick
> response.
> Now that you have had your say, I don't doubt JP will follow your
> decision.
Good :-)

Leave it in, it's not like this string is going to pop up every day


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]