Re: run dialog vs gnome_vfs_url_show

[Danilo Segan <dsegan gmx net>]

понедељак, 25. август 2003. 23:08:39 CEST — Alexander Larsson написа:
> 
> Did I say that they were not important at all? I did not, and I don't
> think so. However, I do consider having a panel that doesn't hang and
> links working in the terminal to be more important than getting 100%
> theoretical translation coverage. If that makes me a bad person, so 
> be it.
> 

If it's "ok" to have them untranslated (if the bug priority is *high*, 
as it seems to be, as compared to the priority of having those strings 
translated), then it's better not to have most of those strings at all 
(others already suggested a way for doing this in schemas).

You're not a bad person (you're actually the "good guy", the one who 
fixes bugs ;-), but it would help if you were a bit "nicer" to the 
other "good guys" (maybe not so good as you, but still good ;-).

Actually, you've done probably more for Gnome then I have done, so I 
was not complaining in my name, but rather, for the protocol breach 
which makes the work harder for many (count in eg. 40 translators that 
need to update compared to the work you yourself need to do to inform 
them appropriately) -- that should be discouraged, and if you (and 
other developers) feel discouraged to do it again, the goal has been 
achieved :-)

We need to make some noise in order to get the point across :o)

> 
> I did not ask christian, and I'm sorry about that. That was a breach
> of protocol. Its just that sometimes when I spend a day fixing a bug 
> in order to get a bad bug out of an imminent release I get sort of
> carried away. I did talk to various people (in the release team etc) 
> on irc, although there was no official "ok" from the release team on 
> any mailing list.
> 

Yeah, I probably overreacted too -- sorry about that, but please think 
of the translators in the future too (other than "heyo translators, 
I've prepared some more work for you" :-).

> 
> Yes. Anyone could have fixed this bug earlier. That would have been
> better. However, nobody did, so we got this situation.
> 

Okay, so lets resolve this in a best way possible -- wait for Christian 
to :-) decide how to go on this, though I *suspect* that he'll be for 
excluding those strings for now (they don't seem essential this late in 
the release cycle).

OTOH, Christian seems to be away, so we might need to wait a bit more 
for his answer.


Cheers,
Danilo