Markus Neteler wrote: > Ok, thanks for the explanations. > The only remaining issue (for me) is that 2011 is indicated > which quite not reflects the current state. But of course that's > not so important...
probably the best thing we can do is adjust the wording to make it clear to non-programmers what it is refering to. Which is tricky to get right, but not an impossible task. (I've no great suggestions) Hamish _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
