2010/10/15 daniel g. siegel :
> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> > As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
>> > everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME modules hosted
>> > outside of git.gnome.org don't always feel comforta
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 13:29 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
> El vie, 15-10-2010 a las 08:29 -0700, Sandy Armstrong escribió:
> >
> > I'm not a fan myself, but I can see how once a project was already
> > hooked on a Launchpad-oriented process, it would be work to migrate to
> > GNOME infrast
El vie, 15-10-2010 a las 08:29 -0700, Sandy Armstrong escribió:
>
> I'm not a fan myself, but I can see how once a project was already
> hooked on a Launchpad-oriented process, it would be work to migrate to
> GNOME infrastructure.
>
Agree, how could we shorten that difference? I think this is t
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:02 AM, daniel g. siegel wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> > As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
>> > everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME modules hosted
>> > outside of git.gnome.or
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
> > everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME modules hosted
> > outside of git.gnome.org don't always feel comfortable with raw
> > commits to their VC
Hi!
> As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
> everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME modules hosted
> outside of git.gnome.org don't always feel comfortable with raw
> commits to their VCS (security, noise in the vcs history etc). Whether
> translations sho
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 13:53 +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
> 2010/10/15 Khaled Hosny :
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:26:40AM +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
> >>
> >> WOW easy does it. It sounds a bit like we have already made the
> >> decision. This should be discussed thoroughly before we decide
>
2010/10/15 Khaled Hosny :
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:26:40AM +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
>>
>> WOW easy does it. It sounds a bit like we have already made the
>> decision. This should be discussed thoroughly before we decide
>> anything or ask people to do work on it.
>>
>> While I can certainl
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 01:29:47PM +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 15.10.2010, 12:58 +0200 schrieb Khaled Hosny:
> > every time I use Transifex I find its UI very confusing and things
> > that can be simply achieved with damned-lies are either impossible or
> > done in a very convolut
> I was about to say some thing along these lines, but you summarised it
> better than what I would have done. I just want to added that every time
> I use Transifex I find its UI very confusing and things that can be
> simply achieved with damned-lies are either impossible or done in a very
> con
Am Freitag, den 15.10.2010, 12:58 +0200 schrieb Khaled Hosny:
> every time I use Transifex I find its UI very confusing and things
> that can be simply achieved with damned-lies are either impossible or
> done in a very convoluted way.
Elaborating your exact problems, and discussing them with Tran
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:26:40AM +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
>
> WOW easy does it. It sounds a bit like we have already made the
> decision. This should be discussed thoroughly before we decide
> anything or ask people to do work on it.
>
> While I can certainly support the idea of of-loading
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Claude Paroz wrote:
> In recent discussions about new GNOME modulesets reorganizations,
> several people have expressed the proposal to install a Transifex
> instance to replace Damned Lies.
>
> I'm absolutely not opposed to such an idea. But I'm also not convince
2010/10/15 Johannes Schmid :
> Hi!
>
>> I'm absolutely not opposed to such an idea. But I'm also not convinced
>> that we will be able to keep current D-L functionalities. However if we
>> get some new ones, maybe the global balance might still be positive.
>> I think the main objective would be to
The branch 'gnome-2-32' was created pointing to:
cc898a1... Use silent building if available
___
gnome-i18n mailing list
gnome-i18n@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
The branch 'gnome-2-32' was created pointing to:
bfd75c9... Use silent building if available
___
gnome-i18n mailing list
gnome-i18n@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Hi!
> I'm absolutely not opposed to such an idea. But I'm also not convinced
> that we will be able to keep current D-L functionalities. However if we
> get some new ones, maybe the global balance might still be positive.
> I think the main objective would be to support (a) auto-commit in GNOME
>
Hi,
In recent discussions about new GNOME modulesets reorganizations,
several people have expressed the proposal to install a Transifex
instance to replace Damned Lies.
I'm absolutely not opposed to such an idea. But I'm also not convinced
that we will be able to keep current D-L functionalities.
18 matches
Mail list logo
