On 2/6/06, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <quote who="Federico Mena Quintero"> > > On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 13:36 -0600, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > > > > > 6. Create a subpackage of symlinks from the missing icons (the old icon > > > names) to the new icons. If you don't have a new icon that matches, > > > find the closest generic one, or simply put in the old icon image with a > > > marker to indicate that it needs to be replaced. See this nice > > > technique: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/01/10/511202.aspx > > > > To clarify this: the point above is to make it easy to find cases where > > we *do* have an old-style icon name and image, *and* a way to map it to > > a new-style name, but we *don't* have a Tango-ified image to go with the > > name. > > Dude, why are we supporting this *wholly inappropriate* late breakage? This > is not the kind of change that we should meekly accept at this stage of the > release process. We don't *have* to do this, and we *shouldn't* do it. This > is a choice between release discipline and riding a train wreck.
I don't believe this is a fair representation. Rodney made the change mid-January, and released it in the gnome-icon-themes-2.13.5 tarball. He also notified desktop-devel-list, at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2006-January/msg00302.html. Now, he did miss feature freeze by about a day, so if this is considered a new feature then sure it was late (though just barely). I had thought it was just a UI change, which he beat the deadline for by a few weeks. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
