Ryan,
I just updated my local copy and saw the new theme for the first time. Awesome
job! I really like it!
-Adrian
--- On Sun, 5/3/09, Ryan Foster wrote:
> From: Ryan Foster
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r770998 - in /ofbiz/branches/release09.04: ./
> themes/bizznesstime/ themes/bizznesstime
Ryan Foster wrote:
> Initially, it started out as a bug fix. We began by simply trying to
> fix all of the issues with Smoothfeather that were listed in various
> JIRA issues, but as we went along it became more and more apparent that
> although the design was good, the original markup was not. W
Initially, it started out as a bug fix. We began by simply trying to
fix all of the issues with Smoothfeather that were listed in various
JIRA issues, but as we went along it became more and more apparent
that although the design was good, the original markup was not. We
ended up having t
I can totally understand why people would think this is something new, but it's
literally replacing a foundation that was not solid enough to be out there for
people to use. My vote would be to make this the new smooth feather and look
for more incremental fixes in the future. The old theme ju
>From what I understand, the Smoothfeather theme is broken, and instead of
>fixing it, it is being replaced by a new theme. If that's the case, and the
>new theme is the default and the one that will be maintained, then we should
>probably make that change in the release too.
Yes, it looks lik
This will replace SmoothFeather which is unusable. So it can be seen as a
SmoothFeather bug fix.
Do you really want to let the R9.04 without this appealing feature ?
And this should not introduce regression if you don't use it since it's
isolated as a theme.
I hope I'm not the sole person to th
I agree, from what I understand it is a complete rework of the same
design plus we have no idea whether it is introducing new bugs or not.
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 3/05/2009, at 3:50 PM, David E Jones wrote:
This looks a lot more like a new feature than a bu
This looks a lot more like a new feature than a bug fix to me.
I think Jacques is clearly voting for it being a bug fix.
Does anyone else have a vote/opinion?
-David
On May 2, 2009, at 5:37 PM, jler...@apache.org wrote:
Author: jleroux
Date: Sat May 2 23:08:44 2009
New Revision: 770998
U
