On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 08:59 +1000, Jean Hollis Weber wrote: > G. Roderick Singleton wrote: > > Gary Schnabl wrote: > >> As to the most recent versions, I checked the list of files for that and > >> most of the comments mentioned in your issue. AFAIK, I'm using the most > >> recent versions, as posted for your issue. > > > > Really? I do not think so. I just checked the issue and low and behold > > there is a > > more recent instance of the the overview section that has none of the > > "errors" quoted above. > > > > Gary, > > > > I haven't a clue what you are using but my copy of the overview is > > attached to 29679 and is in the process of being integrated. I suggest > > you have a look. @uite frankly I think you have grabbed files that are > > *NOT* part of the current master and are > > If Gary has been unable to tell which attachment is the latest > version of a chapter, that is a good example of the difficulties > of using the Issue system for keeping track of things, esp. when > out of date versions of a chapter are not (can not be?) removed > from the issue... and it's hard to tell who is working on what, > and what stage a particular chapter has reached.
Gee with all the dates and times, I would have thought selection pretty easy. I guess not. :-( > > Docs really needs a better system for tracking things. I honestly > don't know what's best to suggest, but we really should be > looking seriously at the possibilities. (Scott and Ger, if you > are doing this and I'm not aware of it, my apologies.) One > possibility I can think of is to use a section of the > Documentation wiki for tracking. Of course that depends on people > actually putting info into the wiki in a timely manner. > A wiki solution would be nice. -- PLEASE KEEP MESSAGES ON THE LIST. OpenOffice.org Documentation Co-Lead http://documentation.openoffice.org/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
