On 1/4/06, Sebastien Bacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 03 janvier 2006 à 17:32 +, Mark McLoughlin a écrit :
I've switched this on by default now for the defaults database now.
Please keep an eye out for any weird issues that might have been caused
by this.
Do you have any
Hey Callum,
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:16:00PM +1300, Callum McKenzie wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 22:10 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
I personally think it's a good idea as I agree that the GFDL sucks,
^^
Given that I regularly
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 08:46:48AM +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Of course, but having first the agreement of the core GNOME developers
will make this work much easier to integrate.
Well, you really just need the agreement of the people who wrote (and
are still writing) the docs :-)
Well, the
On Thu, January 5, 2006 11:08, Jordi Mallach wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 08:46:48AM +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Of course, but having first the agreement of the core GNOME developers
will make this work much easier to integrate.
Well, you really just need the agreement of the people who
Hi all!
I've just branched bug-buddy and gconf-editor for gnome-2-12. New
development will hapen in HEAD. I know that I'm a bit late for 2.13.x
development, but I have been with zero time last months.
Highlights for bug-buddy roadmap:
* XML-RPC method for submitting bugs replacing ancient
Am Donnerstag, den 05.01.2006, 11:11 +0100 schrieb Jordi Mallach:
In most cases, policies were established before the voices against the
license got strong, but I suspect that the strongest reason is that
if
the FSF recommends this one for docs, it must be The Right Thing.
Well, we don't
Le jeudi 05 janvier 2006 à 19:27 +0100, Christian Neumair a écrit :
What are the precise problem with GDFL-licensed documents, when there
are no invariant sections? We can have a policy to accept any
GDFL-licensed document if it doesn't contain any invariant section.
Debian could have done so
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 13:51 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi Christian,
On Wed, January 4, 2006 11:31, Christian Neumair wrote:
The Feedback section of the style guide [1] mentions [EMAIL PROTECTED] as
contact address. I think a simple email address makes it very hard to
track the progress
