Jonathan Marsden wrote:
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
No, we don't tag RCs They are not releases, but release candidates :)
We could. Tags are cheap, but why?
(3) An alpha release is a release. A beta release is a release. And an
rc release is a release, too -- and a candidate to become an of
I just noticed:
r2336 | scribe | 2009-04-24 18:15:28 -0700 (Fri, 24 Apr 2009) | 2 lines
added setUserDisclaimerConfirmed back in per multiple requests.
Thanks :)
Jonathan
___
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.or
Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> No, we don't tag RCs They are not releases, but release candidates :)
> We could. Tags are cheap, but why?
(1) It means anyone can verify the contents of the tarball against svn,
in case of a suspected trojaned or accidentally corrupted tarball.
(2) It means it is ea
No, we don't tag RCs They are not releases, but release candidates :)
We could. Tags are cheap, but why?
Jonathan Marsden wrote:
I can't find the tags for SWORD releases 1.6.0RC1 and 1.6.0RC2 -- am I
just doing something wrong?
svn list https://crosswire.org/svn/sword/tags
outputs
swor
I can't find the tags for SWORD releases 1.6.0RC1 and 1.6.0RC2 -- am I
just doing something wrong?
svn list https://crosswire.org/svn/sword/tags
outputs
sword-1-4-0/
sword-1-4-1/
sword-1-4-1a/
sword-1-4-2/
sword-1-4-3/
sword-1-4-4/
sword-1-4-5/
sword-1-4-6/
sword-1-5-0/
sw
> However in this case, in this virtual method a delegate method could be
> called which can be any class implementing a certain defined method or
> interface.
> The delegate could be the UI controller that handles the disclaimer dialog.
The problem with all of this for us, is that our warning is
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
... The point is to tell shortly what they can do: obtain and use it
freely for almost any purpose. AND that distributing is allowed within
certain limits. My clause about distributing is too limited as was
pointed out. However, it's not legally binding and it still tells
On Apr 24, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
Would it be good idea to put a notice with licence agreement in each
frontend which says that "this software can be obtained with no
cost, if you have paid a large sum you may have been fooled"?"
Yes. How about part of the banner/splash an
Instead of the need for subclassing, Objective-C or actually Cocoa
(also some other frameworks) use the concept of delegation.
In Objective-C this can be easily done through late binding. Methods
on objects can be called, or tried to call, even if it is unsure if
they are implemented.
But in
If I could also please request that the previous function be added
back in. Like Manfred, subclassing InstallMgr to call a gui function
is violating the separation we try to have between frontend and
backend code. Already, we simply provide our own warning, always
returning true to the function. We
My question was prompted by recent discussions in the context of mobile
phones with narrow displays.
Equally valid to ponder in the context of narrow windows on more
conventional platforms.
The longest two words in the English Bible are the proper names in Isaiah
8:1 (Mahershalalhashbaz) and Psal
Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> I will submit bug report to licensecheck cause in my expectation it should
> pick up a license enclosed in funky commenting.
Agreed; adding a debdiff to your bug report would IMO be even better :)
Jonathan
___
sword-devel mai
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> It is usual practice to mark some API features deprecated. It could have
> been done here, too. Better yet, why not let the setter function be (at
> the moment, put it back). ...
We both came up with more or less the same solution at the same time :)
> ... calling a libra
2009/4/24 Jonathan Marsden
> >> src/utilfuns/ftplib.c: UNKNOWN
>
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>
> > It's LGPL v2+ with Incorrect FSF address.
> >
> > Attaching a patch: ...
>
> I think patching is an incorrect approach to this.
>
I made the patch a bit tongue in cheek.
>
> Only the copyright hol
2009/4/24 Kahunapule Michael Johnson
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
>
> 2009/4/24 Dmitrijs Ledkovs
> :
>
>
> 2009/4/22 Jonathan Marsden :
>
>
> One quick first impression: there are still a few files in the RC2 tarball
> that
>
> licencecheck -r *
>
> src/modules/common/sapphire.cpp: *No copyr
Quoting Greg Hellings :
4) IMHO, the layout does not at all look like a Mac application. It should
have a Mac look and feel. Especially since the download is 38M. That is
pretty big for a the Bible programs available on the Mac. Some of it has a
Mac look and feel (e.g. tabs) but much of it doe
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Eeli Kaikkonen
wrote:
> Anyways, even if we forget the exact wording, the other point was even more
> important. Would the frontend developers like to use this kind of statement,
> crafted carefully, in all frontends? We don't know yet how our apps will be
>
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> "Would it be good idea to put a notice with licence agreement in each
> frontend which says that "this software can be obtained with no cost, if
> you have paid a large sum you may have been fooled"?"
The idea is good. Putting it "with the licence agreement" or "in
licens
Hi There.
Am 24.04.2009 um 04:50 schrieb DM Smith:
Greg,
This is close, but I think a few changes are needed to satisify Mac
users:
1)The name should consistently be BibleTime, In the title bar it is
bibletime (all lower case). (This shoule be easily fixed.)
2) There should be an applicatio
19 matches
Mail list logo
