Dear translators,
recently we released the first Beta of pgAdmin III V1.2, which has some
great enhancements over the 1.0 version; have a look at
http://www.pgadmin.org/pgadmin3/beta . It will probably gain even more
attendance than before, because the binary distribution of PostgreSQL
8.0
Lauris Bukis wrote:
Updated latvian translation.
Thanks,
applied.
Regards,
Andreas
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
In case you won't be able to contribute a translation any more, please
drop us a short note so we can mark the translation as vacant.
I'll continue Turkish translation; but maybe I'll submit it when we are
ready to final release -- I'm out of time nowadays.
OK, take your
Serguei Mokhov wrote:
Hello Andreas,
I am maintaing the ru_RU one (and have no plans of stopping doing that). BTW,
the translation page shows 1012 for some languages as Total and 1008 for
others. So, there are 100% translated strings as 1008/1008 and 1012/1012... I
guess the string merge was
Btw homepage have incorrect status. I know that yesterday I updated
latvian po file with newest pot file and I had all 1015 translated
strings but pgadmin homepage shows that there is 4 untranslated strings.
I dowloaded latvian po file from homepage and there everything was ok
(1015 translated
Lauris Bukis wrote:
Btw homepage have incorrect status. I know that yesterday I updated
latvian po file with newest pot file and I had all 1015 translated
strings but pgadmin homepage shows that there is 4 untranslated strings.
I dowloaded latvian po file from homepage and there everything was
- Original Message -
From: Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 15, 2004 7:24 AM
Serguei Mokhov wrote:
Hello Andreas,
I am maintaing the ru_RU one (and have no plans of stopping doing that). BTW,
the translation page shows 1012 for some languages as Total and 1008
Serguei Mokhov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Andreas Pflug [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 15, 2004 7:24 AM
Serguei Mokhov wrote:
But even if they aren't merged regularly, shouldn't the entire
thing be merged at once (like in a transaction) and not part-way
through? Like some had
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Andreas Pflug wrote:
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:18:57 +
But even if they aren't merged regularly, shouldn't the entire
thing be merged at once (like in a transaction) and not part-way
through? Like some had 1008 as total, and others 1012...
No. You can update from
