Frederic Crozat wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I only discovered this morning by looking at James commit for jhbuild
>that GNOME 2.11/2.12 is supposed to ship with GTK+ 2.8 (and therefore
>Cairo) which might not have been obvious for anybody reading
>http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap (since there is only a refere
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 17:52 +0200, Danilo Šegan wrote:
> I support this initiative by Frederic, and let me add that apart from
> misreferenced gettext domain names, it's not uncommon for programmers
> to miss appropriate calls to set up translation when they switch to
> GtkUIManager (from GtkItemF
Le mercredi 08 juin 2005 à 17:52 +0200, Danilo ¦egan a écrit :
> Btw, Frederic, what were the untranslated applications you noticed?
> I'm running 2.10 since it came out and I didn't notice any regressions
> in the apps I regularly use.
Regression were usually not application wide, but in part of
On June 3rd, Christian Rose wrote:
> I'd also very much like to welcome Danilo to the position. Danilo, being
> a very active translator, translation team coordinator, intltool
> contributor, and xml2po maintainer at the same time, brings a lot of
> experience, and, as everyone who met him at GUAD
Today at 16:27, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> So, if you are a non-english native speaker GNOME hacker (or if you are
> fluent enough to use GNOME in another language than english), please use
> it by default on your system and report bugs (when translations is there
> but not displayed). And of course
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 11:30 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> - Cairo support: is in CVS, and seems to work reasonably well. The main
> question mark here is if we are confident that the Cairo api as of
> 0.5.0 is stable enough for our purposes. Ideally, we'd have an
> officially api-stable
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 14:33 +0200, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I only discovered this morning by looking at James commit for jhbuild
> that GNOME 2.11/2.12 is supposed to ship with GTK+ 2.8 (and therefore
> Cairo) which might not have been obvious for anybody reading
> http://live.gnome.o
On Wed, June 8, 2005 15:47, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller said:
> I guess a fair compromise would be to aim for using gtk 2.8 for 2.12,
> but not using any new functionality in gtk 2.8. That way if it turns out
> 2.8 is not stable enough we can roll back to 2.6 before release. On the
> other s
On 6/8/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/8/05, Mark McLoughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey,
> > I guess there's quite a few benefits/risks to be weighed up here:
> >
> > - The benefit of having cool new rendering stuff in GNOME 2.12
> >
> > - The benefit of being a
Hi everyone,
as Mandriva cooker users has probably noticed, I recently updated Cooker
to GNOME 2.10.1 (and all other versions from 2.10.x modules released
until now) and I was a little troubled by i18n regressions I found in it
compared to 2.8. Usually, strings were correctly translated in various
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 00:07 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Oh, and after the last time we did this, the release team swore mighty
> > oaths to never depend on a released-close-to-gnome-schedule GTK again,
> > since it jeopardizes our release schedule for something that is less
> > tested than t
> Oh, and after the last time we did this, the release team swore mighty
> oaths to never depend on a released-close-to-gnome-schedule GTK again,
> since it jeopardizes our release schedule for something that is less
> tested than the rest of the stack and which in many cases isn't widely
> used
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 13:50 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> - The benefit of being able to use all the other new APIs in GTK+
> 2.8 for GNOME 2.12
This was the reason i brought up this with jamesh, leading to the change
of the jhbuild modules.
In particular, I'd like to use the new g_utf8_
I guess a fair compromise would be to aim for using gtk 2.8 for 2.12,
but not using any new functionality in gtk 2.8. That way if it turns out
2.8 is not stable enough we can roll back to 2.6 before release. On the
other side it is stable enough then we ensure its gets widely
distributed and tested
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 09:09 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> So, yeah, I'm pretty strongly against this, though I'm open to persuasion.
Me too, for all the reasons Luis listed. I remember our r-t
discussions basically concluded that we'd made a mistake depending on
GTK+ for 2.6. 2.6 had stability issues
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 09:09 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> Oh, and after the last time we did this, the release team swore mighty
> oaths to never depend on a released-close-to-gnome-schedule GTK again,
[snip]
I think we'd love them to be in sync. They are getting there, and if
they are there, I think
On 6/8/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/8/05, Mark McLoughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hey,
> > I guess there's quite a few benefits/risks to be weighed up here:
> >
> > - The benefit of having cool new rendering stuff in GNOME 2.12
> >
> > - The benefit of being a
On 6/8/05, Mark McLoughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey,
> I guess there's quite a few benefits/risks to be weighed up here:
>
> - The benefit of having cool new rendering stuff in GNOME 2.12
>
> - The benefit of being able to use all the other new APIs in GTK+
> 2.8 for GNOME
Hey,
I guess there's quite a few benefits/risks to be weighed up here:
- The benefit of having cool new rendering stuff in GNOME 2.12
- The benefit of being able to use all the other new APIs in GTK+
2.8 for GNOME 2.12
- The benefit of getting all this stuff tested early (i.e.
Hi all,
I only discovered this morning by looking at James commit for jhbuild
that GNOME 2.11/2.12 is supposed to ship with GTK+ 2.8 (and therefore
Cairo) which might not have been obvious for anybody reading
http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap (since there is only a reference to cairo
used to replace l
20 matches
Mail list logo
