Well you asked for an opinion.
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 01:15 -0500, JP Rosevear wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 09:10 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
>
> My opinion is 'who cares', its only for the registry editor, which
> shouldn't ever be being used anyway, if all things are working
> properly.
Well,
Well you asked for an opinion.
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 01:15 -0500, JP Rosevear wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 09:10 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
>
> My opinion is 'who cares', its only for the registry editor, which
> shouldn't ever be being used anyway, if all things are working
> properly.
Well,
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 09:10 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
>
> My opinion is 'who cares', its only for the registry editor, which
> shouldn't ever be being used anyway, if all things are working
> properly.
Well, I do and so do the translators at least. There were also non
string related items in the mai
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 09:10 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
>
> My opinion is 'who cares', its only for the registry editor, which
> shouldn't ever be being used anyway, if all things are working
> properly.
Well, I do and so do the translators at least. There were also non
string related items in the mai
My opinion is 'who cares', its only for the registry editor, which shouldn't ever be being used anyway, if all things are working properly.
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 12:27 -0500, JP Rosevear wrote:
When looking at 61075 I noticed some inconsistency/issues with our
schema files. I also looked
My opinion is 'who cares', its only for the registry editor, which shouldn't ever be being used anyway, if all things are working properly.
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 12:27 -0500, JP Rosevear wrote:
When looking at 61075 I noticed some inconsistency/issues with our
schema files. I also looked
