On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Gil Forcada wrote:
> I know I know, we have to tackle that point ... What I was trying to say
> was that instead of keeping in the same category the apps and its
> libraries (for completeness) if we split them in different categories,
> we allow the translators do
El dv 12 de 10 de 2012 a les 19:18 -0400, en/na Chris Leonard va
escriure:
> Gil,
>
> I would coment that WebKitGTK+ is not on your list, but is required
> for a completely localized Epiphany experience.
>
> I'm still agitating for some improvement (hackish or otherwise) in the
> WebKitGTK+ failu
El ds 13 de 10 de 2012 a les 00:02 +0200, en/na Gil Forcada va escriure:
> Hi all,
>
> See attached (right now I do not have Internet to put that on
> live.gnome.org at [1]) a new proposal for the modules splitting (related
> to bug [2]).
>
> The current proposal is actually really good, but I th
Gil,
I would coment that WebKitGTK+ is not on your list, but is required
for a completely localized Epiphany experience.
I'm still agitating for some improvement (hackish or otherwise) in the
WebKitGTK+ failure to produce a valid POT file (for the past two
years), but that is a separate matter.
Hi all,
See attached (right now I do not have Internet to put that on
live.gnome.org at [1]) a new proposal for the modules splitting (related
to bug [2]).
The current proposal is actually really good, but I think it can be even
better (hence my proposal). What I do really don't like is to tie
to
