Re: GNOME version

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 20:25 +0000, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> 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? :)

Can you file it and make it high priority, so I don't forget about it?
(My gf's mother is in town this weekend, which either means lots of
hacking, or none at all... we'll see :)

Luis