Daniel Naber wrote: > On Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008, Mathias Bauer wrote: > >> > BTW, the de_DE/VERSION file doesn't contain the real version number, >> > it should be 20071211, as can be seen in de_DE.dic. >> >> That's a tricky thing. The version number in the VERSION file is the >> version of the dictionary itself (as this exists outside of OOo), but >> the version number of the extension doesn't need to be the same. Or am I >> wrong here? > > I'm not sure I'm following you: the number is not just some number, but the > date the maintainer released his/her dictionary, so if the dictionary was > released on 2007-12-11, then 20071211 should be used as a version number > everywhere. But I have no idea if the "VERSION" file is used at all or if > it's just lying around in CVS without any use.
IIRC the "VERSION" file was part of the download of the dictionary and so it was committed to cvs after unpacking. We should ask the dictionary owner. That doesn't change my recommendation for dictionaries in general: if you are going to provide an update, please check the versioning scheme and the version number of the bundled extension. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
