Le samedi 27 septembre 2008 à 17:45 +0200, Christian Rose a écrit : > On 9/27/08, Claude Paroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le vendredi 29 août 2008 à 08:49 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit : > > > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:54:56PM +0200, Claude Paroz wrote: > > > > Le jeudi 28 août 2008 à 22:45 +0200, Daniel Nylander a écrit : > > > > > Good afternoon, > > > > > > > > > > I'm about to finish the Swedish translations for 2.24 but ran inte > > some > > > > > problems along the way. > > > > > Where is the module seahorse-plugins located? Can't find it in > > seahorse > > > > > > > > It is below seahorse trunk. > > > > However, I hope it will be moved in its own module, because it is > > really > > > > non standard currently. > > > > > > I often forget about tickets. Just email gnome-sysadmin when that > > > happens. > > > > > > Could this problem be addressed now that 2.24 rush is behind us? > > Hmm. I'm confused... > > The only Subversion request I know about for the 'seahorse' module was > RT#4499, sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] by Stef Walter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at March 17, 2008. The topic was "Request for > SVN dump of 'seahorse' repository". > > Excerpt from the discussion in that ticket, on June 30, 2008: > > --- > > On Mon Mar 17 01:49:23 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I'd like to request an SVN dump of the 'seahorse' GNOME repository. > >> > >> This is the first step in splitting the main seahorse program, and its > >> modules into two separate projects, for easier maintenance and > > refactoring. > >> Please let me know if there's any other information you need, or if > >> there's some way for me to go about this directly. > >> > >> Thanks for everything! > >> > >> Stef Walter > >> > > Can we close this now? > > Yup. It's no longer needed and Adam Schreiber had it resolved in a > satisfactory way. > > Cheers, > > Stef > --- > > So I thought this had been resolved, and closed the ticket. Is there > some other new dump request for seahorse that [EMAIL PROTECTED] > hasn't been informed about?
The misunderstanding might be about the so-called "satisfactory way". For me, placing a module in the same level as "branches, tags, trunk" of another module is *not* a satisfactory way, even if the two modules are related. But this should be probably a svn masters policy. Claude _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
