Re: GNOME version
- From: Luis Villa <louie ximian com>
- To: Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
- Cc: Elijah Newren <newren math utah edu>, bugsquad <gnome-bugsquad gnome org>
- Subject: Re: GNOME version
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:33:56 -0500
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 :)
] [Thread Prev