On 08/21/2012 05:09 PM, David Prévot wrote:
sorry if I sounded like I was rushing stuff.
for any other package, the 'rush' would be the right thing to do, just
not for this, as it's somewhat 'special' and you couldn't know, so
nothing to be sorry for.
--
Address:Daniel Baumann, Donn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Daniel, intrigeri,
Le 21/08/2012 05:18, Daniel Baumann a écrit :
> first of all, the only bug we're talking about (#685445; there's no
> other l10n related stuff that is not already present in testing) was
> filled on 2012-08-20 20:39 UTC, the i
On 08/21/2012 10:58 AM, intrigeri wrote:
Daniel: given live-* is a special case in a way that makes the
standard timeline of l10n work non-applicable, what about providing
them l10n with some kind of custom timeline (a bit more detailed than
"eventually") that helps them schedule their work?
hm
Hi,
Daniel Baumann wrote (21 Aug 2012 05:12:50 GMT) :
> On 08/20/2012 11:10 PM, David Prévot wrote:
>> I noticed they are actually fixed in unstable, but the 3.0~a57-1
>> version contains changes that are not in line with the freeze
>> policy, and I couldn't find any trace of pre-approval or unblo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/20/2012 11:10 PM, David Prévot wrote:
> I noticed they are actually fixed in unstable, but the 3.0~a57-1
> version contains changes that are not in line with the freeze
> policy, and I couldn't find any trace of pre-approval or unblock
> request,
