>
> Now, what is the reason for not having such "structure" ourselves?
Actually it was first though I had for myself - one page with nice
pictures, descriptions and lot of links. Perfect.
--
mortigi tempo
Peter.
--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailm
http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-243/
So, what's the structure here?
- Brief intro.
- Highlight 1
- Highlight 2
- Highlight 3
...
- Highlight n
If I'm a blender designer, I know where to put my attention. If I'm a
specialized journalist/blogger wanting to write about late
Sorry, this didn get through the list
-- Forwarded message --
A suggestion to Gervais: don't follow any of the structures proposed
in this thread. Not even the one you started proposing.
Pick all the relevant the informative elements. Figure out what is the
main story here. Let's
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:06:00 -0500
"Gervais Mulongoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where did you get the information at
> http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ReleaseNotes/ ?
>
> And how current is it?
>
the project maintainers, the release team and others volunteers add the
data.
The
Hey Claus,
Where did you get the information at
http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ReleaseNotes/ ?
And how current is it?
-Gervais
On 2/15/07, Claus Schwarm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:08:57 +0100
Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ho-hum... seems like addi
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:08:57 +0100
Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ho-hum... seems like adding a smiley is an easy way to insult people
> and then make it look like you're only joking.
>
It was meant in the sense of "Take it easy".
Nobody is perfect. That's nothing to be worried abou
Hello everyone:
Thanks for the discussion. Let's just go with Claus' ideas. They are
consistent with previous releases. To cater to first-timers we can update
the Gnome About pages to reflect some of the suggestions I made at the start
of the discussion. But for now, I will continue production of
Claus Schwarm wrote:
> For example, your mail shows that you have not understood the release
> notes structure but still you're willing to argue. In fact, your
> mails show that you have no clue about marketing but that doesn't
> prevent you from making comments. So, I'm not angry with you or
> Ger
Hi!
I'm going to mix the quotes to keep it short:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:10:08 +0100
Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that this is a better approach.
>
> 2.16: Eye candy (although I personally would have preferred
> performance) 2.18: Developer suite (although we still have a goo
I still believe it is important to give each release an overall theme as
Claus suggested.
Here is something I envision:
Gnome 2.18: The Developer Suite
February 15, 2007 (MarketingList). The developers have been asking for it,
and the Gnome Project has just released it: a new Gnome Desktop, ver
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 14:45 +0100, Claus Schwarm wrote:
> Hi, Murray!
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:51:54 +0100
> Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would like to keep the user/admin/developer distinction that we
> > added for 2.12 and 2.14:
> > http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/e
Hello everyone,
Let me be clear about this: I am not trying to step on anyone's toes. I am
new here, and the fastest way to learn about something is to fail (science
101 anyone?).
I am a newbie at this, thanks for reminding me. But as I understood it there
is no lead writer. So please remember t
Hi, Murray!
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:51:54 +0100
Murray Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would like to keep the user/admin/developer distinction that we
> added for 2.12 and 2.14:
> http://www.gnome.org/start/2.14/notes/en/
>
> but lost for 2.16:
> http://www.gnome.org/start/2.16/notes/en/
>
Hi,
Claus Schwarm wrote:
> Yes, most amateurs think like that, too. However, this is very unlikely
> for two reasons. First, because we should write:
>
> 2.16: Feature Enhancements
> 2.18: New Features
> 2.20: Feature Improvements
> 2.22: Many New Features
> So we should slightly variate the
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 11:45 +0100, Claus Schwarm wrote:
[snip]
> we should write:
>
> 2.16: Feature Enhancements
> 2.18: New Features
> 2.20: Feature Improvements
> 2.22: Many New Features
>
> instead of:
>
> 2.16: Feature Enhancements
> 2.18: Feature Enhancements
> 2.20: Feature Enhancements
>
Hi, Dave!
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:28:36 +0100
Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is an interesting way to look at it - I would have thought that
> if we always have the same headline "features" - usability,
> performance, i18n, a11y - don't we run the risk of exactly the
> opposite ef
Hi,
Claus Schwarm wrote:
> * psychology: people are more likely to remember what they see often.
> If we keep the GNOME release notes structure stable for a few years,
> people will learn the talking points: "every GNOME release improves
> features, usability, performance, internationalization a
Hi!
It might be interesting to know why you want to change the 'old'
structure?
I invented the old one for good reasons. These include
* usability: People don't read web pages, they scan them. Our main
"talking points" -- that is: every GNOME release improves features,
usability, performance, i
Hello Everyone,
I am requesting approval of the general structure for the 2.18 release
notes.
Below are the 4 categories that I have identified, based on the content of
2.16 release notes.
- About been changed)
- Additions - a list of all the new stuff we haven't seen yet (since
2.16)
-
19 matches
Mail list logo
