On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:56:49 +0100, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Friday 23 October 2009 23:54:36 Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On Friday 23 October 2009 23:27:34 zero3 wrote: >> > >> > Awesomeness! >> > >> > Did the merge succeed without issues? Any problematic conflicts? >> >> Several files had issues, I sided with the beta branch. >> > >> > The reason for the "Browse Freenet" to "Launch Freenet" rename in the >> > first >> > place, was that Freenet is starting to do much other stuff than >> > "browsing >> > [websites]". Mail, forums, IM, file sharing. "Browse" sounds a bit >> > misleading as a common verb for that. Maybe something completely >> > different? >> >> Open Freenet? >> > >> > I'm responsible for turning the incognito flag back on. I really think >> > the >> > block should be placed in Freenet (by simply checking the user-agent), >> > as >> > the block can then easily be removed on a new build when Google have >> > fixed >> > Chrome. If it's placed in the launcher, we can't push the update to >> > enable >> > it again later on, as we depend on people updating their helper >> > executables >> > themselves. Which they probably won't (it's possible via the new tray >> > manager though). >> >> Hmmm, okay. It is disabled in fproxy at the moment, so I will reinstate >> the change you made, but I will add comments on both sides. >> > Done. Any thoughts on Launch Freenet vs Open Freenet? We do tell the user > that it will run in the background anyway, so maybe launch is okay?
Roger that. Either works for me. I don't really have an opinion on which is best. The Danish translation for either of them would be the same, actually. - Zero3
