On 5/29/2012 9:35 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
In my view of this, comments should *not* be considered a permanent
part of the document. Either they get incorporated into the document
itself, or they get flushed. I really don't want to see comments
sticking around forever on a doc. I consider them to
On 05/28/2012 09:38 PM, Gregg Smith wrote:
Each branch different, 2.2 2.4 have some big differences between
them in various areas. My 2 cents anyway.
What I'm perhaps more curious to get sorted out is whether we should
consider the trunk and the 2.4 documentation separate entities, or
whether
On 29 May 2012, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
Each branch different, 2.2 2.4 have some big differences between
them in various areas. My 2 cents anyway.
What I'm perhaps more curious to get sorted out is whether we should
consider the trunk and the 2.4 documentation separate entities, or
On May 29, 2012, at 5:04 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 29 May 2012, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
Each branch different, 2.2 2.4 have some big differences between
them in various areas. My 2 cents anyway.
What I'm perhaps more curious to get sorted out is whether we should
consider the
On 5/27/2012 3:20 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
We could insist that all comments be made in English unless they are
related to a specific translations, and as long as we keep the
translations up to date with the suggestions and delete comments as they
are implemented, there shouldn't be much clutter.
Most of the kinks in the new comment system have now been sorted, as has
most of the question on the actual implementation of it. However, a few
questions remain, that I'd like some input on if possible:
- Should we keep the various translations separate, or should it be one
unified commentary?
