On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 14:32 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 12:10 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 14:14 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > > > > > FYI: for those who haven't played yet, there is now a 'GNOME Version' > > > field to replace/enhance the old GNOMEVER keywords. > > > > > > Question: should it have a 'not gnome' version, for things like GIMP? > > > > Do you mean > > 1) There should be yet another field, in addition to version, gnome > > version, and all the rest? > > 2) That one of the valid values for the 'Gnome Version' field should > > be "Not part of core GNOME"? > > OR > > 3) Something else? > > > > Item (2) makes sense to me. We already have "Unspecified" and > > "Unversioned enhancement" as values for that field. > > Yeah, I meant (2). 'Unspecified' as it currently stand is ambigous- it > means either 'not in gnome' or 'no one has specified what version it is > in.' I'd like to clarify that ambiguity, I guess- I was trying to write > up the definition for the new bug_status.html and this came up. Can someone just hack the cgi/template so it's not displayed for products not part of GNOME, please? :) -- Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part