Re: Random updates.

[Telsa Gwynne <hobbit aloss ukuu org uk>]

On Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 02:12:04AM -0600 or thereabouts, Dan Mueth wrote:

> > put the version number as the version number for the screenshooter
> > program: should it have been for the gnome-applets package?
> 
> I would use the package version number, since I expect it will only be
> available in the gnome-core package in the future.  

Ah, okay. I started to correct this, but had you corrected it already?
There's a cvs location for download now, and I know I didn't put that
in:) I changed gnome-core to gnome-applets, though.
 
> The way I designed the status set was from the end-user point of view.
> Even if complete documentation exists, if it isn't packaged with the
> application, it is "missing", not "done".  We could consider changing this

Bah:) Changed that, too.

> system to better reflect the author point of view.  However I somewhat
> enjoy this system since it emphasizes that you have to wait until the
> documentation is packaged with the application before you get to claim you
> are "done".

Yes, I can see that point: my worry was that people would think that
if it was missing it needed doing, but I'd forgotten about the 
'assigned to' thing.

I'll get the hang of it eventually. I am currently making a version
of it which is <sect1> at the top only and which has the 'credits'
and 'bugs and limitations' sections in the end of it rather than
in the <bookinfo> stuff, for when the applet docs get bundled together,
but for now, I would think it makes more sense that it remains as it
is, so that anyone grabbing from CVS can generate the html from it?
Open to correction on that.

Telsa