Re: gtk+ non-update

2006-04-18 Thread Clytie Siddall
On 17/04/2006, at 5:22 PM, Gora Mohanty wrote: To answer part of your question, there is usually a good reason that some packages have a different numbering scheme, usually because they are also used independently of GNOME. In some cases, perhaps, but not in all. I've corresponded with deve

Re: gtk+ non-update

2006-04-17 Thread Gora Mohanty
--- Clytie Siddall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > I don't understand why some modules don't follow the standard HEAD > and gnome-VERSION branches, and in this case it may even have caused > dysfunction. Please, developers, when you branch, stick to the > standard format. It helps us, since

gtk+ non-update

2006-04-17 Thread Clytie Siddall
Hi everyone :) I started catching up with my 2.16 updates today, and discovered one peculiar thing. My gtk+ file (the "HEAD" branch, not gtk-2-8) was a couple of years old. In fact, it dated from before I started translating for Gnome. There were over a hundred untranslated strings, not s