El dom, 28-04-2002 a las 01:09, R.I.P. Deaddog escribió: > On 27 Apr 2002, Christian Rose wrote: > > > (*) Currently this isn't the case because for example the unstable > > status pages don't just list the core GNOME 2.0 modules but also a lot > > of non-core and non-gnome modules, but that's just a bug. I think we > > need a seperate stable/extra and unstable/extra report. I'd really > > appreciate Carlos' opinions on this. > > Agreed. As I have said, this is just an internim solution, and we > really need Carlos to decide. So I'll stop adding non-core apps > into translation-status.xml, and open a new xml file to jot down > all extra apps. If it's time to be useful in the future, the new > xml file can always be merged into translation-status.xml or used > seperately. > Sorry, I cannot wait to answer :-) First of all. WE are who decide how the status pages are, we are a team ;-), I'm the actual mantainer for status pages but I love your suggestions && features request. I prefer all modules in one page. It's more easy to look the translations status but you are right, we should have a feature that lets us see what things are at gnome core and which others are "optional". Work in progress. This night will be a nonstop one and I hope also a really productive one ;-). Please, don't stop to send me your ideas I will be here long time :-) (also at irc.gnome.org, but please, if I'm not at the i18n channel, only if it's really urgent). > Objection to this? > -- > Abel Cheung > GPG Key: (0xC67186FF) http://deaddog.org/gpg.asc -- Carlos Perelló Marín mailto:carlos@gnome-db.org mailto:carlos.perello@hispalinux.es http://www.gnome-db.org http://www.Hispalinux.es Valencia - Spain
Esta parte del mensaje esta firmada digitalmente