On Thursday 09 August 2007, Heikki Johannes Junes wrote: > I have committed already the files, but had a second look to the files. > They seem to have old rosegarden-data versions (next will be 1.6.0): > > <rosegarden-data version="1.4.0">
I wouldn't worry about that. I bet we have all kinds of weird versions in there. It shouldn't matter. > And the name of the librarian is in some cases missing: > > <librarian name="<none>" email="<none>"/> > > It would be nice, if these lines would be patched. Lately, most of our submissions have been from people who used the .ins -> .rg conversion script. This script creates .rg files with theses fields filled in. However, if a user actually uses our GUI to enter this information, there is no way to edit these fields from within the GUI. It was Rich's intention that we developers should edit the XML upon receiving a user submission, and not worry the users with the messy business of puttering around in the XML. If you want to argue with Rich about this design, you'll have to throw some rocks at him and see if you can get him to wake up. I haven't heard a peep out of him in years, and he seems to have blended in with the roses. -- D. Michael McIntyre ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
