Re: String additions to 'evolution.gnome-3-2'

[Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar hrachyshka gmail com>]

On 10/07/2011 05:22 PM, Dan Vratil wrote:
> On 10/07/2011 04:08 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>> On 10/07/2011 05:02 PM, Dan Vratil wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2011 03:20 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2011 04:16 PM, GNOME Status Pages wrote:
>>>>> This is an automatic notification from status generation scripts on:
>>>>> http://l10n.gnome.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> There have been following string additions to module
>>>>> 'evolution.gnome-3-2':
>>>>>
>>>>> + "Enable address formatting"
>>>>>       + "Wheter addresses should be formatted according to standard in
>>>>> their destination country."
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that this doesn't directly indicate a string freeze break, but it
>>>>> might be worth investigating.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> gnome-i18n mailing list
>>>>> gnome-i18n gnome org
>>>>> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 1. this is a string freeze break. Please either revert it in gnome-3-2
>>>> or request an approval for it.
>>>> 2. there is a typo (wheter ->   whether).
>>>> /Ihar
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> upps, I'm sorry. I have reverted the string part of the commit from
>>> gnome-3-2 and fixed the typo in master.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dan
>> Hi,
>> Is there a reason to leave code changes in place? As I see from the
>> code, it won't be used at all. Just an unneeded check for missing gconf
>> flag is left.
>> BTW please leave gnome-i18n@ ML in CC for similar conversations.
>> /Ihar
> Hi,
> it was suggested by Milan Crha in the related bug report [1] to commit
> the whole patch to master and the functionality to gnome-3-2 (my bad I
> committed the schema file with it). I discussed this with Milan and he
> said that the option can still be toggled by manually setting the value
> in GConf (even without record in .schema file) and wants the
> functionality to stay in gnome-3-2.
> 
> Regards,
> Dan
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=659876

Ok, fine. Thanks for explanation.
If there is no obvious way to enable this functionality then it can be
left as-is. Though I don't see a big reason to stay the code in the
tree, but at the same time I don't have any objections as a translator.

Still, I thought we have code freeze requirements too. As I see it, this
patch adds new functionality to evolution, even if it's not obvious how
to enable it. This may require approval from release team (?).

/Ihar