Re: Sun-updated docs submitted to /contrib
- From: Ryan McDougall <NQG24419 nifty com>
- To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>
- Cc: Docs People <gnome-doc-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Sun-updated docs submitted to /contrib
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:47:15 +0900
On Fri, 2005-25-02 at 07:42 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 14:57 +0900, Ryan McDougall wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-25-02 at 10:44 +1300, Glynn Foster wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > > As you know, the Sun docteam has been updating and creating
> > > > documentation for the Sun release of the Java Desktop System. I have put
> > > > the following tarballs in the gnome-docu/gdp/contrib/JDSR3 directory in
> > > > CVS now if you want to use any of them for the upcoming GNOME release:
> > >
> > > It should be noted that JDS 3 will be based on GNOME 2.6.
> > I may be totally out of line here, and if so don't hesitate to put me in
> > my place, but wouldn't it be easier for both Sun and GNOME to work on
> > patching documentation upstream, then branching from there for JDS
> > specific releases instead of doing it the opposite way?
> I think you are out of line unless you're willing to help fix it.
> Read the archives, there was much discussion on the topic.
Contrary to what you imply, I have read the thread between you an
Patrick Costello, and I was under the impression Sun's policy was at
fault not Pat's team. I am willing to help fix it, not that I can affect
Sun's internal policy, but I don't think thats what you meant.
I'm all for less noise on the lists, but really I can't ask a simple and
relevant question you yourself asked? Don't worry I'll show myself the
] [Thread Prev