On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 11:22 +0200, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> > > Then lets stop the target! If I understand you correctly, the
> > > development process from the documentors point of view is kind of
> like
> > > this.
> > >
> > > * Five months were developers play and pretty much destroy all the
> d
> > Then lets stop the target! If I understand you correctly, the
> > development process from the documentors point of view is kind of like
> > this.
> >
> > * Five months were developers play and pretty much destroy all the docs we
> > make.
> > * Four weeks were we can undo the damage caused an
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Shaun McCance wrote:
> Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:32:00 -0500
> From: Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Nickolay V. Shmyrev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: Nine Months in Six Months
>
> On Sat, 2006
On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 10:24 +1200, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Nickolay V. Shmyrev wrote:
> > ...
> > [Shaun McCance wrote:]
> >>
> >> But now you want all these programmers to assemble their
> >> documentation piecemeal as they add features?
> >>
> >> Even if they al
On Sep 10, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Nickolay V. Shmyrev wrote:
> ...
> [Shaun McCance wrote:]
>>
>> But now you want all these programmers to assemble their
>> documentation piecemeal as they add features?
>>
>> Even if they all had perfect English (which they don't), and even if
>> they were all really
>
> You'll notice one of the new things in my proposal
> was the idea of a string review. There are a lot
> of crappy strings in our interfaces, often because
> many of our programmers just don't have very good
> English skills.
>
> And that's fine. Hey, my German pretty much sucks,
> although
On Sat, 2006-09-09 at 09:41 +0400, Nickolay V. Shmyrev wrote:
> В Сбт, 09/09/2006 в 04:55 +0200, BJörn Lindqvist пишет:
> > On 9/8/06, Don Scorgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Doc people do not have enough time. Its as simple as that. As shaunm
> > > pointed out, this release we got 4 weeks t
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, [ISO-8859-1] BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
[...]
> * Five months were developers play and pretty much destroy all the docs we
> make.
> * Four weeks were we can undo the damage caused and make GNOME understandable.
>
> Maybe this problem can be solved by elevating the documentation
Sáb, 2006-09-09 às 04:55 +0200, BJörn Lindqvist escreveu:
> On 9/8/06, Don Scorgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Doc people do not have enough time. Its as simple as that. As shaunm
> > pointed out, this release we got 4 weeks to update the documentation.
> > This included 3 new modules needing
В Сбт, 09/09/2006 в 04:55 +0200, BJörn Lindqvist пишет:
> On 9/8/06, Don Scorgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Doc people do not have enough time. Its as simple as that. As shaunm
> > pointed out, this release we got 4 weeks to update the documentation.
> > This included 3 new modules needing do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> To me, that makes sense. An untranslated string is just as annoying as
> a frequently segfaulting program. So lets treat the problems the same.
> Code that changes behaviour shouldn't be committed unless the
> documentation is
On 9/8/06, Don Scorgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doc people do not have enough time. Its as simple as that. As shaunm
> pointed out, this release we got 4 weeks to update the documentation.
> This included 3 new modules needing docs, as well as lots of updates to
> lots of other docs. The doc
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 01:00 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
>
> Here is my much-anticipated MASTER PLAN:
>
> Using my incredible mathematical genius, I have figured
> out how to fit an entire nine months of work into only
> six months. I knew there was a reason I got a degree
> in mathematics. (Or
James Henstridge wrote:
> On 08/09/06, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Your master plan implies branching early and heavily committing to
>> both branches for a long time. Reality check: we are still using this
>> archaic software called C.V.S.! Branching with that softwa
On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 11:18 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> On Sex, 2006-09-08 at 01:00 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 19:32 +0100, Don Scorgie wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 11:24 -0700, David Trowbridge wrote:
> > > > What in particular isn't
On 08/09/06, Hubert Figuiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 08 September 2006 08:57, James Henstridge wrote:
> > The real issue with handling development in parallel branches is
> > really complexity of merging. This is an area where Subversion
> > doesn't really buy you much over CVS -- yo
On Friday 08 September 2006 08:57, James Henstridge wrote:
> The real issue with handling development in parallel branches is
> really complexity of merging. This is an area where Subversion
> doesn't really buy you much over CVS -- you still need to manually
> keep track of what you merged to do
On 08/09/06, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your master plan implies branching early and heavily committing to
> both branches for a long time. Reality check: we are still using this
> archaic software called C.V.S.! Branching with that software is
> incredibly complex.
>
On Sex, 2006-09-08 at 01:00 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 19:32 +0100, Don Scorgie wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 11:24 -0700, David Trowbridge wrote:
> > > What in particular isn't possible with the 6-month cycle?
> >
> > For one thing: the documentation gets
> Here is my much-anticipated MASTER PLAN:
>
> Using my incredible mathematical genius, I have figured out how to fit an
> entire nine months of work into only six months.
I don't believe that directly splitting the focus between new development
and bug fixing, or lengthening the period of time
On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 19:32 +0100, Don Scorgie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 11:24 -0700, David Trowbridge wrote:
> > What in particular isn't possible with the 6-month cycle?
>
> For one thing: the documentation gets squeezed. We (the doc team) have,
> basically, 3 month to document a
21 matches
Mail list logo
